N68335-13-R-0278-0001.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SPECIFIC EVALUATION FACTORS

M –(1) EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (Supplies) (January 2013)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

Award of the contract resulting from this solicitation will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable with acceptable past performance, in full compliance to all other requirements set forth in the solicitation, and the lowest price. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract without discussions to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the lowest price to the Government. Therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the proposals. All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L Part B Specific Information will impact the resulting evaluation ratings.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors (and sub factors, if required), listed below.

I. TECHNICAL

II. PAST PERFORMANCE

III. PRICE/COST

The proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a quality supply or service that will ensure the successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. If deemed appropriate by the Government, proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors. In addition, the Offeror’s technical proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the price/cost proposal, and reflects a clear understanding of the scope of work necessary to meet the solicitation requirements.

For all the Technical factor(s)/sub factors, if applicable, a Technical Rating will be assigned. If the Technical Rating reflects the proposed approach does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements it will result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and ineligible for award based on initial proposals. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating will result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition. A technical proposal must be found to be satisfactory in all areas to be considered technically acceptable and eligible for award under this factor.

For the Past Performance factor, the Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant prior efforts accomplished by the Offeror are to the solicitation requirements as well as the contractor’s performance on those contracts. Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate if an Offeror has successfully performed similar work before. When proposals are received from contractor entities (e.g., teams, joint ventures) specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member. To be considered for award under this factor, an offeror’s past performance must be determined to be relevant and an acceptable level of risk. In the case of an Offeror without any relevant past performance or for whom the information on past perfromance is not available or is unknown, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will be assigned a raiting of “neutral”.

The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in their proposals to evaluate past performance. The Government may use Past Performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. The Past Performance Information Reporting System (PPIRS) will be the primary method used to evaluate Past Performance. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government has no duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the Offeror. The Offeror has the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information.

PART B. SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0

TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine if the Offeror’s production approach, production capacity, facilities, equipment, personnel qualifications, and internal processes demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to meet the Government requirements set forth in the O&I Level PSE Combo #2 Statement of Work (SOW) (Section C of this solicitation) and drawings (Attachment 3). The Government will evaluate how the Offeror intends to meet the technical specifications set forth in the drawings. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to provide personnel and other resources needed to support and manage the fabrication and production for the proposed effort. If resources are not currently available, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to obtain those resources and/or train the necessary personnel to meet the contractual requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s quality control or other quality-related processes to determine the Offeror’s ability to produce and deliver consistently conforming products. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s timeline and strategic plan that addresses critical project milestones such as production, final assembly, and inspection/acceptance.

More specifically, the Government will be evaluating the proposal in the categories listed below. The contractor’s proposal must demonstrate adequacy in each of the eight (8) areas below.

Manufacturing and Capacity

1. Detailed discussion of manufacturing approach (planning/implementation/sustainment of production/ management of resources to meet delivery schedules) – the overall approach used in fulfilling the Government’s requirements will be evaluated to determine if the proposed methodology will satisfy product quality and delivery schedule.

2. Personnel skill, qualifications & certifications – this will include qualifications, certifications, experience and numbers of personnel that will be dedicated to this effort.

3. Capacity of production facility- the offeror shall demonstrate to the Government that their production facility will be able to accommodate the quality fabrication and timely delivery of the hardware identified in the RFP in addition to their current workload. The offeror shall submit a comprehensive list of major equipment located in their facility.

4. Manufacturing risks & mitigation plan – the offeror shall provide a comprehensive review of potential manufacturing risks and corresponding mitigation plans.

5. Quality Assurance – The offeror’s proposed method to satisfy the Quality Assurance Requirements will be evaluated to determine how well the proposal complies with ISO 9000 or ANSI/Q9001/Q9003. If the offeror proposes an equivalent Quality System Model in accordance with FAR Clause 52.246-11, the model shall be evaluated to determine if it is equivalent to ISO 9000 and ANSI/Q9001/Q9003, and the proposal shall be evaluated to determine if it complies with the proposed model.

6. Subcontractor management plan – Offeror shall provide their protocol of their oversight of their subcontractors to insure delivery of a quality product on schedule.

7. Delivery schedule is of primary concern. The offeror is to provide examples of the manufacture of 5 items of similar complexity (as identified in the RFP) simultaneously. The offeror’s experience will be evaluated to determine the similarity of the experience in terms of fabrication and production technologies utilized to fulfill the requirements of this contract as well as the demonstrated ability of the offeror to provide hardware in accordance with the schedule as identified in the RFP.

The Government will evaluate all the above for the prime contractor and all principle subcontractors.

2.0

PAST PERFORMANCE

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. First, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and (if applicable) its principal subcontractors’ and critical team members’ past performance to determine if the recent effort is relevant to this instant effort. Similarity of the products, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontracting/teaming may all be considered in the relevancy determination. Secondly, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services and in meeting technical, price/cost, and schedule requirements on products and services deemed relevant to the solicitation requirements. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated. To be considered for award under this factor, an offeror’s past performance must be determined to be relevant and an acceptable level of risk.

3.0

PRICE/COST

Any understatement or overstatement of prices/costs or inconsistencies between the Technical and Price/Cost proposals may reflect a lack of understanding of the work and could impact the technical rating and/or risk assessment. Therefore, any inconsistency between their proposed performance and price/cost should be explained in the proposal. For example, if the intended use of new and innovative production techniques is the basis for an abnormally low estimate, the nature and risk of these techniques and their impact on price/cost should be explained.

Firm Fixed Price CLINs:

Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is complete, reasonable, consistent with the Offeror’s technical approach, reflects a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements, and contains balanced unit pricing. In its evaluation, the Government may use commercial published data, same or similar DoD contracts, Government estimates, industry standards, field pricing reports, or other information as deemed appropriate by the Government. The total evaluated price will be the sum of the Base Period CLINs plus the sum of any option Period CLINs for the quantities listed in the below chart. The corresponding step ladder unit price proposed in Section B will be used to calculate the evaluated price for each SERD per year. The evaluation will not bind the Government to purchase any of the options. All prices in the step ladder pricing chart will be evaluated for integrity.

Total quantities evaluated including CLIN structure:

Not Separately Priced

V-22 Requirements; Year 2014

Not Separately Priced

V-22 Requirements; Year 2015

Not Separately Priced

The contract ceiling award amount will be based on the maximum number of units being procured individually at the unit price for one (1) each.

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4. Unbalanced pricing may result in a proposal being deemed unacceptable.

The Government may determine that an offer is rejected if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between the line items or sub line items. An offer is materially unbalanced when it is based on prices significantly understated for some items and overstated in relation to the prices for other items.

PART C. EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach.

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Compliance Ratings: The ratings reflect the Government's assessment of solicitation compliance and the expected results, based on the offeror's proposed approach.

Technical Ratings

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Performance Risk: The performance risk assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of future performance based on past performance.

Risk

Definition

(End of Summary of Changes)