N6426723R0023_Amendment-0002_20230808.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to update Section M, M-215-H004, paragraph 4.5.1(e).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Aug-2023

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 N6426723R0023

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07-Jul-2023

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, 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

08-Aug-2023

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CORONA DIV.

1999 FOURTH STREET BLDG 510

NORCO CA 92860

N64267 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

X

N6426723R0023

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

M-215-H004 BASIS OF AWARD (NAVSEA) (DEC 2018)

1.0 GENERAL

The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price Contract to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal represents the Best Value to the Government in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section M of this solicitation. The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government’s interest. The Government intends to award a Contract based upon initial proposals received. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The following conditions must be met in order to be eligible for award:

a) The proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of the law, regulation and conditions set forth in this solicitation. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Instruction to Offeror within this solicitation.

b) Offeror’s are advised that the Government intends to make award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting clarifications or discussions with Offeror’s, but reserves the right to conduct clarifications and/or discussions if determined by the Contracting Officer to be in the Government’s best interest IAW FAR 52.215-1.

c) The Government anticipates a single contract award resulting from this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to award more than one or no contract, depending on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

d) The award decision will be based on the Government’s evaluation of each Offeror’s complete proposal against the evaluation Factors and Subfactors identified below. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government after evaluation based on the Factors and Subfactors described herein. The “best value” may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest cost, nor receiving the highest technical rating. As specified in the FAR 52.215-1, 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.

e) Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price, technical and past performance standpoint.

f) The evaluation process will consist of two (2) parts: (1) Go/No-Go criteria evaluation of bid sample and then (2) the full proposal (including bid sample) evaluation for those Offeror’s whose bid sample pass the evaluation of the Go/No-Go criteria listed below.

Volume Title

I Factor 1 - Bid Sample

II

Factor 2 - Technical Subfactor 1 – Production Subfactor 2 – Management Subfactor 3 – Quality Subfactor 4 – Technical Approach

III Factor 3 - Past Performance

IV Evaluated Price

g) Testing:

1) Characteristics of the Cartridge: Evaluates the cartridge pressures and velocity to ensure safe functioning in a weapon.

2) Function and Casualty (F&C): Provides data to determine if the ammunition can be expected to perform satisfactorily in the service weapons for which it has been designed.

3) Accuracy and Dispersion: Ensures launched projectile down range precision.

4) Penetration: Evaluates the terminal ballistic performance of the projectile in ballistic gelatin through various target mediums.

3.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Bid Samples passing all Go/No-Go criteria will continue with the full evaluation.

As part of the technical evaluation, laboratory measurements and field tests may be used to determine product compliance with the Performance Specification, Attachment 02-ESED.

In addition to the bid samples, the Offeror’s shall submit a written proposal in response to the factors and subfactors described in the solicitation in such detail to allow the Government to evaluate the proposal.

The evaluation factors and associated subfactors for the award decision are listed below.

Factor/Subfactor Evaluation Rating Method Factor I Bid Sample Go/No-Go

Factor II Technical Trade-off

Subfactor 1 Production Trade-off

Subfactor 2 Management Trade-off Subfactor 3 Quality Trade-off

Subfactor 4 Technical Approach Trade-off Factor III Past Performance Recency, Relevancy, and Quality

Factor IV Evaluated Price Best Value

4.0 BID SAMPLE (Factor 1)

GO/NO-GO CRITERIA

Offeror’s shall provide one thousand (1,000) rounds of 9mm Barrier Blind Cartridges as a bid sample for this requirement being solicited. Bid sample and submitted Offeror’s data test results will be evaluated by Corona Division, RS personnel, against the performance specification and the below outlined identified in this solicitation.

A No-Go rating in any of the requirement test below will render the Bid Sample unacceptable. Offeror’s that fail to meet the Go/No-Go criteria will not be given further considerations/evaluation for award.

Category Requirement Go No-Go

1. Characteristics of Cartridge Meets Section M, paragraph 4.2 Fails Section M, paragraph 4.2

2. Reliability Meets Section M, paragraph 4.3 Fails Section M, paragraph 4.3

3. Exterior Ballistic Performance Meets Section M, paragraph 4.4 Fails Section M, paragraph 4.4

4. Terminal Ballistic Performance Meets Section M, paragraph 4.5 Fails Section M, paragraph 4.5

4.1 9mm Barrier Blind Cartridge Randomization

a) Each Offeror will be assigned an Offeror Identification Code by the Contracting Office.

b) The Government will generate a random Offeror firing order for all of the 9mm Barrier Blind cartridges via a computer program (i.e. Minitab, Microsoft Excel, etc.).

4.2 Characteristics of Cartridge

The Velocity and Chamber Pressure Data will be evaluated based on its ability to meet the acceptable performance IAW Attachment 02-ESED.

a) For Velocity, Attachment 02-ESED, 3.5.2, the measurable testing will vary by manufacturer’s design.

b) For Chamber Pressure testing will be evaluated by Attachment 02-ESED, 3.5.3 and Attachment 03-SCATP 9, Section 4 “Electronic Velocity and Action Time Procedures” or Attachment 04 SAAMI Z299.3, Section II Procedure, Velocity and Pressure.

4.3 Reliability

The Government will evaluate the entire quantity of 9mm Barrier Blind Cartridges fired using the Function and Casualty (F&C) test to ensure it meets acceptable performance IAW Attachment 02-ESED, Table VII “Lot Acceptance” criteria.

a) 200 samples will be fired at 25 degrees F, 420 samples will be fired at 70 degrees F, 200 samples will be fired at 145 degrees F.

b) Samples at each temperature will be divided evenly between two (2) M18 and two (2) M9A1 weapons

4.4 Exterior Ballistic Performance

The Government will evaluate the 9mm Barrier Blind Cartridges using the Accuracy and Dispersion Test to ensure launched projectile down range precision are acceptable IAW the below outlined information.

a) The accuracy and dispersion testing will use two (2) M18, and two (2) M9A1 weapons.

b) Each weapon will be secured in a Ransom Rest test fixture.

1) Each weapon will fire one (1), 5-round group when placed in the Ransom Rest to settle the weapon.

c) Each weapon will fire six (6), five (5) round, groups of the bid sample cartridges, at separate paper targets located at a range of 25 yards (75 feet) from the end of the weapon muzzle. The barrel will be cooled after each five (5)-round group.

d) The extreme spread of any individual five (5) shot group shall be 4.5 inches maximum, and the average extreme spread of all five (5)-shot groups shall be 4.0 inches maximum.

e) Targets, at each range, will be large enough to accommodate the anticipated dispersion.

f) Shot placement on the target will be measured and recorded.

g) Muzzle velocity will be monitored for all recorded shots. The muzzle velocity will be recorded at 15 feet from the muzzle.

4.5 Terminal Ballistic Performance

4.5.1 The Government will evaluate penetration for terminal ballistic performance of the projectile in ballistic gelatin through various target mediums IAW Attachment 02-ESED, Section 4.5.9 and the below outlined information:

a) Bare gelatin: Three (3) rounds will be fired at bare gelatin block shall be placed 10 feet from the muzzle. The average penetration of three (3) rounds must be greater than 13 inches. The gelatin block will be 6 inches wide x 6 inches tall x 16 inches deep.

1) Reconducted Test: Only when the projectile exits the side of the gelatin due to impacting the front face within 1 inch of the edge, the round will be replaced.

b) Steel Barrier: Three (3) rounds will be fired at two (2) pieces of 20-gauge steel plates placed three (3) inches apart and placed 10 feet from the muzzle from the first plate. The gelatin block placed 18 inches behind the rear steel plates. Additionally, the gelatin block will be clothing-covered. Clothing-covered will consist of one (1) layer of cotton t-shirt material (approximately 5.25 ounces per yard, 48 threads per inch) and one (1) layer of cotton t-shirt material (approximately 3.5 ounces per yard, 80 threads per inch). The average penetration of three rounds must be greater than 13 inches.

c) Auto-glass: Three (3) rounds will be fired and placed at one (1) piece of auto-glass 10 feet from the muzzle. The glass will be set at two (2) different angles during testing. (1.) Horizontal angle of 45 degrees, and (2.) At a vertical angle of 15 degrees (angles as shown in Diagram 1). The gelatin block shall be placed 18 inches behind the auto-glass. The auto-glass is one (1) piece of AS1 rated (industry standard marking) 1/4 inch laminated automobile safety glass. Additionally, the gelatin block shall be clothing-covered. Clothing-covered will consist of one (1) layer of cotton t-shirt material (approximately 5.25 ounces per yard, 48 threads per inch) and one (1) layer of cotton t-shirt material (approximately 3.5 ounces per yard, 80 threads per inch). The average penetration of three rounds must be greater than 9 inches.

Diagram 1

d) High Speed Video: Will be captured of each round fired.

Note: Video will not be used for evaluation purposes.

e) Terminal Performance: Three (3) rounds will be fired at a level 3A soft armor plate placed 10 feet from the muzzle. A clothing-covered gelatin block will be placed directly behind the armor; secured, held upright, from the sides. Clothing-covered will consist of one (1) layer of cotton t-shirt material (approximately 5.25 ounces per yard, 48 threads per inch) and one (1) layer of cotton t-shirt material (approximately 3.5 ounces per yard, 80 threads per inch). The bid sample must fully penetrate the level 3A armor and enter the clothing-covered gelatin block.

1) Penetration data collection will include penetration depth in the gelatin. Penetration is defined as the projectile or projectile fragment being completely enclosed within the ballistic gelatin.

2) The make and model of level 3A armor test panel will be a Midwest Armor, Model: MW0035-IIIA-M-

SAPI.

5.0 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL (Factor 2)

The Government will conduct a technical evaluation to determine whether or not the proposal submission meets or exceeds the Government’s requirements of the solicitation. The assessment of this will be based on the completeness and effectiveness of the Offeror’s technical approach in terms of addressing the requirements of the solicitation in terms of addressing the following aspects:

The Technical Factor is further divided into the following Subfactors:

Subfactor 1 – Production

a) The Offeror shall provide demonstrable evidence of their capability and capacity to produce and deliver according to the requirements of the solicitation. Note that the information in this Subfactor is for evaluation purposes only and the Contractor shall be required to meet the terms and conditions of the resulting contract. If not in place, the proposed plan shall demonstrate how they will be put in place in time to meet the delivery schedule requirements of the solicitation. Proposals shall include the following information:

1) Capability: The Offeror shall provide evidence including descriptions of their manufacturing facilities, equipment, processes, skills, and expertise that demonstrates that the Offeror fully comprehends the manufacturing capability requirements.

(a) Process Flow Diagrams for 9mm Barrier Blind Ammunition type, which describe internal and supplier (excluding raw materials and propellant) processes for manufacturing end-item components, including at minimum but not limited to: assembly, inspection, marking, packaging, and testing.

(b) Detailed descriptions of the key manufacturing processes and skills, to include but not limited to: case, bullet, and primer manufacturing, insertion/staking of primers, loading of propellant, crimping of bullets, and waterproofing.

2) Capacity: The Offeror shall provide evidence of their ability to meet the order quantity on a monthly basis.

The Offeror shall provide evidence that their existing capacity can produce a total quantity of up to 10,000,000 cartridges per year or their plan to obtain the capacity to produce a total quantity of up to 10,000,000 cartridges per year. The Offeror shall provide demonstrable evidence of adequate types and numbers of machinery, production rates, and operators needed for the production of the ammunition.

3) Delivery: The Offeror shall provide a delivery plan based on reasonable monthly quantities over the delivery period. The Offeror shall include their plan to complete order deliveries within 15 months including FAAT.

Subfactor 2 – Management

a) The Offeror shall provide evidence of their ability to effectively plan, schedule and manage the program, as well as execute an acceptable supply chain management system to include their suppliers/Subcontractors to ensure all solicitation requirements are met and shall include the following:

1) Organization: The Offeror shall provide evidence of an effective approach to program management to include their ability to provide for required positions to any teaming structure, organizational reporting lines, and key positions within the organization.

2) Risk Management: The Offeror shall provide evidence of their ability to identify, mitigate, and manage all areas of risk including, but not limited to: cost/price, technical, production, materials, suppliers, loss of personnel, delivery schedule, single point failures, performance risks, and unexpected events (fire, explosion, tornado, etc.).

3) Integrated Master Plan (IMP)/Integrated Master Schedule (IMS):

(a) IMP: The Offeror shall provide their plan for all system management that they intend to use to execute the program. The plan shall further include the required levels of engineering, hardware, and resources, including risk management, key pre-production/active production events, accomplishments, and criteria to ensure the production program meets all solicitation requirements

(b) IMS: The Offeror shall provide their IMS to include the tasks, durations, dependencies and sequencing of all actions, resources and the integration needed for the Offeror to comply with the requirements of this RFP and meet the schedule requirements, for one ordering period with the quantity of up to 10,000,000 cartridges per year.

No FAATs will be waived for evaluation purposes.

4) Supply Chain Management Plan: The Offeror shall provide a supply chain management plan for compliance with the contract requirements with respect to the ability to obtain material and components. The proposal shall include the following:

(a) The Offeror shall further provide details of the following: Item (case, primer, propellant, projectile, packaging material, etc.), whether the Offeror will be procuring that item from a Subcontractor or manufacturing in-house, supplier(s), source location(s), manufacturer(s) and locations of manufacture (if different than supplier/source location(s)). The supply chain management plan will also include the production or supplier capacity for meeting all maximum fiscal yearly production quantities.

(b) Offeror shall provide the following information within this attachment: supplier, supplier capacity, supplier capacity dedicated to contract production, components/subcomponents that will be manufactured in- house and the date on the letter of commitment for the delivery of each product and subcomponent.

Subfactor 3 – Quality

a) The Offeror shall provide evidence that they have a QMS in place, along with their plans to control material flow, ensure proper and complete failure analysis procedures, and ensure that all required testing assets are available to enable the Offeror to produce a quality product IAW the requirements of the solicitation. The proposal shall include the following:

1) Quality Management Approach: The Offeror shall further provide a description detailing the effectiveness and suitability of their QMS including their Quality Assurance Plan to determine their ability to meet applicable contract quality requirements.

2) Material Handling System. The Offeror shall include a detailed description of their Material Handling System including Statistical Process Control. This description shall address the control of product through all stages of production and acceptance, as well as the ability to manage material segregation between commercial and military products. The proposed Material Handling System shall also include plans to control critical characteristics and plans to control escapes of non-conforming material. The Offeror shall provide evidence of their ability to plan for the segregation and control of non-conforming material. The Offeror shall also include their plan for implementing and maintaining a material control system at their suppliers and their formal follow-up process to assure information is received, understood and appropriately implemented in a timely manner.

3) Failure Analysis. The Offeror shall provide a Failure Analysis Methodology for conducting failure analyses in the event of product deficiencies and/or test failures. This shall include but is not limited to: procedures for triggering, conducting, documenting, and closing out a failure analysis, as well as initial notification to the Government, implementation of associated corrective actions, and plan to flow down and ensure implementation of this methodology to Subcontractors.

4) Testing Assets. The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of their facilities, equipment, and processes necessary to perform ballistic testing on all cartridge configurations in order to satisfy acceptance inspections. The Offeror shall also include the testing assets available at their suppliers and their formal follow-up process to assure information is received, understood and appropriately implemented in a timely manner.

Subfactor 4 – Technical Approach

a) The Offeror shall provide detailed evidence that demonstrates they thoroughly understand the requirements and technical aspects and have the ability to comply and verify that they can meet all Government Technical Data Package requirements. The proposal shall include the following:

1) Technical Data Package Compliance Demonstration: The Offeror shall provide detailed evidence that they reviewed all of the Government TDP to include all drawings, item specifications, and associated quality provisions and acceptance requirements to ensure compliance prior to contract start and how they meet or plan to meet the requirements of the Government TDP prior to contract award. This will include the Offeror’s detailed plan to prepare and execute vendor preproduction component acceptance testing, Subcontractor component evaluations during production, Prime Contractor in-process checks of components/end items and the Offeror’s efforts with the Government and Contractors to ensure all components shall continue to meet the Government TDP through the life of the contract.

2) Technical Data Package Compliance Verification: The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of their inspection system including acceptance testing for product feature verification to be used and an explanation of how this system will ensure full compliance with the TDP. This will include the Offeror’s plans to address both TDP required inspections/tests and any additional in-process inspections or tests that they intend to use to ensure TDP compliance and product quality for all listed and determined key characteristics. These inspections and tests include all functional, non-functional and destructive tests as well as inspections performed in-house, by their suppliers/vendors and/or the Government or their designees. The Offeror shall also provide details on the conveyance of these requirements to their suppliers and their formal follow-up process to assure that pertinent information is received, understood and appropriately implemented in a timely manner.

3) Configuration Management: The Offeror shall provide descriptions of how changes to the Government TDP will be tracked until implementation and then documented during the life of the contract. The proposal shall include how the Offeror would make recommendations to the Government in the form of ECPs and/or RFVs, as well as how configuration management requirements are flowed down, managed, and controlled through Offeror’s organization and Subcontractors.

4) Definitions:

(a) Technical. The term “technical,” as used herein, refers to non-price Factors other than past performance.

More than one “technical” Factor can be used and titled to match the specific evaluation criteria appropriate for the RFP. The purpose of the Technical Factor is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. Some of the aspects affecting an Offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements may include technical approach, qualifications, facilities, and others. Once the minimum requirements are established, the team shall evaluate the Offeror’s proposal against these requirements to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below for the overall Technical Factor and individual Subfactors.

(b) Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

(c) Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

(d) Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A

"significant weakness" in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract

(e) Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract

(f) Deficiency is 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.

(g) Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is 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 subfactor 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.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Table (Factor 2 and Subfactors)

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

6.0 VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE (Factor 3)

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Sources of past performance are described in Section L, paragraph 8.0.

The Government will consider the Offeror’s record of conforming to specifications/commercial product descriptions and to standards of good workmanship; the Offeror’s adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the Offeror’s record of managing subcontractor delivery and performance; the Offeror’s record of number and type of change orders under similar contracts; the Offeror’s reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and, generally, the Offeror’s business-like concern for the interests of the customer. Past performance is also a measure of the risk of performance associated with the Offeror.

A record of marginal or unacceptable past performance significantly increases performance risk and may result in a finding that the Offeror is unacceptable and ineligible for award. The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as one means of evaluating the relative capability of the Offeror and other competitors to meet the performance requirements of the proposed contract.

The Contracting Officer is not responsible for locating or securing any information not furnished with the offer. The Government may, however, utilize all available information, including information not provided by the Offeror, in the past performance evaluation. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact, to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror, to review less than all information submitted, and to only analyze sufficient information to make a reasonable determination of each Offeror’s past performance rating. If insufficient information regarding the Offeror’s corporate history is available, the Offeror is encouraged to submit for evaluation, evidence of relevant past performance on the part of the Offeror’s key/principal employees, as either a prime- or subcontractor.

There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

Recency. The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. For the purposes of this solicitation, recent contracts are defined in Section L, paragraph 8.0.

Relevancy. The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/ teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements;

and a measure of the likelihood the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Quality of Products or Services. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c) (2)). Quality is the composite of materiel attributes including performance features and characteristics of a production or service to satisfy a customer's given need. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into a Performance Confidence Assessment.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)]. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered acceptable.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Table (Factor 3)

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 similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Table (Factor 3)

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.

Neutral Confidence

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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

7.0 VOLUME IV – EVALUATED PRICE (Factor 4)

The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows. Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factors 1 and 2, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3. Factors 1, 2 and 3 (factors other than price), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4 (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. The best value determination may result in the Government awarding to other than the lowest total evaluated price (TEP) Offeror.

Under Factor 2, Subfactors 1 through 4 are listed in descending order of importance. Factor 4 (price) will not be rated, but will be considered in determining the "best value" to the Government.

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, all years summed, to arrive at an evaluated TEP. If a waiver is not granted, the TEP shall include all First Article cost of CLINs 003.

(End of Summary of Changes)