N68335-17-R-0085_AMENDMENT_0003_CAATS.docx

N6833517R0085

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0003

The purpose of this Amendment is to revise our answer to Question #20 provided on Amendment 0002 and to remove the Commercial Services Provider (ComSP) requirement from Sections L & M.

20. Question: Section L of the RFP, specifically, Section L 1.0 I.A, requires offerors to indicate if they have obtained Commercial Services Provider (ComSP) certification for CAATS, and Section M Part B 1.0 I. says the evaluation will include whether they have obtained ComSP certification. However, nowhere in the RFP is ComSP certification defined or explicitly stated as a requirement. Perhaps it is an inadvertent carryover from a previous acquisition? Please clarify if ComSP certification is a requirement or not, and how it will be evaluated (i.e. is it a strength to have the certification, or is an offeror non-awardable if they are not certified?).

Answer: The ComSP certification is not required and the following references contained in Sections L & M of this solicitation are hereby removed:

(1) Section L Part 1.0I.A, “The offeror shall indicate whether it has obtained Commercial Services Provider (ComSP) certification for CAATS.”

(2) Section M Part B 1.0I : “The evaluation will include whether they have obtained ComSP certification for the CAATS and PAS.”

As a result of this amendment, receipt of proposal packages has NOT been extended.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

SECTION L - CONTENT OF PROPOSALS (SUPPLIES OR SERVICES) (SEP 2010)

PART A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 GENERAL

The Offeror is required to submit sufficient information concerning the following areas to enable Government personnel to fully ascertain capabilities of the Offeror to perform the requirements. The proposal must be sufficient in detail and scope to permit evaluation and provide the evaluators a clear understanding of the Offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the defined elements as required by the solicitation. All proposals must clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements, associated risks and is able, willing and competent to devote the resources necessary to meet the requirements, and that the Offeror has valid and practical solutions for all requirements and potential risk areas. The Offeror must respond to all requirements of the solicitation and not alter or rearrange the solicitation. The Offeror has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with all the evaluation factors and or subfactors identified in this solicitation. The Offeror is advised that the Government may incorporate into the final contract strengths included in the Offeror’s proposal deemed beneficial to the Government. With the exception of the Price/Cost volume, no cost or pricing information should appear in any volume. Alternate proposals are not acceptable.

In presenting material in the proposal, the Offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization should be emphasized during proposal preparation. The Offeror is responsible to present enough information to allow the Government to evaluate the proposed work effort, support, and approach, as well as the price/cost proposal without opening discussions. Statements that the prospective Offeror understands, or can and/or will comply with, the specifications, and paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof without supporting information are considered inadequate by the Government, and may render a rating of unacceptable. For the purpose of this solicitation, relevance is defined as something that has a logical connection with the matter under consideration. Such aspects of relevance include the type of effort (e.g., technical design, logistics development, testing, production), the type of requirements (e.g., shipboard, environmental), similarity, complexity, contract type, contract dollar value, the division of the company that will perform the work, and degree of participation by principal subcontractors, team members, or critical team members. Recency is defined as performance within 5 years of the date of this proposal submission.

The Offeror must include any data that illustrates the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. Failure to address a specific factor or subfactor, or element clearly may be considered a deficiency. There is no need to repeat information in more than one volume if an overlap exists; the detailed information must be included in the most logical place and summarized and referenced in other areas. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentation materials beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal is neither necessary nor desired.

The Offeror is expected to comply with all requirements of the RFP. The Government advises the Offeror that taking exception or deviating from any term or condition of the RFP may make an offer unacceptable, and the proposal unawardable, unless the RFP expressly authorizes such an exception or deviation with regard to that specific term or condition. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency.

Throughout these instructions, a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 10% of the proposed total price/cost (excluding the Offeror’s profit/fee), for the contract. “Team member” is defined as those entities that make up a joint venture or any other partnership or teaming arrangement formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation. “Critical team member” is defined as those entities of the Offeror that perform a critical function in the performance of the resulting contract, whether it is technical or financial, and/or that have important roles in any high or medium risk areas identified in the Offeror’s proposal.

2.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT

Written proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12 pt normal font (no reduction permitted), single-spaced with 1-inch margins all around, and formatted for standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper. All pages should be numbered with section and page numbers. When foldout pages are used for drawings, schematics, spreadsheets or an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) they must not exceed 11 x 17 inches and will be counted as 1 page. Foldout pages that contain only text information will be counted as two pages. Graphs shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph to the same accuracy that a 10 x 10 to the ½ inch grid provides. Graphic resolution should be consistent with the purpose of the data presented.

In addition to the instructions provided in 3.0, the Offeror will provide one complete copy of the written proposal to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) as electronic files fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2010 and for information not supported by MS Office products, with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on a CD-ROM. The Offeror will ensure that the Price/Cost Volume is provided on a separate CD-ROM. Each CD-ROM is to be labeled for content and the Offeror’s name. If a discrepancy exists between the original paper copy of the proposal and the disk copy, the paper copy will take precedence.

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND VOLUMES

Each volume of the proposal shall be submitted as one (1) original and additional copies as specified in the table below. All volumes shall be delivered to the address provided in Section 4.0 prior to the closing date/time stated in this solicitation. Page limitations for each volume if any, are also specified in the table below; title, tab, acronym list and table of contents pages do not count towards page limit. Proposal pages beyond the specified maximum limit will not be reviewed as part of the evaluation.

Information submitted as an Annex to the proposal includes manuals, specifications, plans, procedures, and policies that exist as an official document of the company or facility, as well as other information requested in Part B Specific Instructions. Annexes do not have page limitations. The authorized Annexes are summarized in the table below.

Each volume shall contain the following information:

4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION:

Clearly mark all packages with the solicitation number. The submission date for the proposal shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP.

Offeror shall submit proposals via United States Postal Service or through a commercial carrier using the address provided below. Offeror shall not submit proposals by facsimile or electronically via email.

Naval Air Warfare Center AD (LKE) Code: 2.5.2.1.1 (Jennifer Betchen) Hwy 547, Bldg 562-3 Joint Base MDL, NJ 08733

Solicitation Number: N68335-17-R-0085

Hand carried proposals may be delivered to Bldg 562-1, Rm 134 of the address above, and to the attention of Jennifer Betchen – Contract Specialist and/or Cindy Scheper – Contracting Officer, 2.5.2.1.1

5.0 PROPOSAL PACKAGING:

The Offeror shall package the proposal volumes in cartons or equivalent packaging containers in the most efficient manner possible grouping like volumes to the maximum extent possible. Each container shall be single person portable. One container shall include all Original Proposal volumes including the original/signed documents submitted as part of the Executive Summary.

Each box should include a packing slip detailing the contents to include the volume number, title, and copy number. Also, each box should be stamped or marked “For Official Use Only” and “Source Selection Information – See FAR-2.101 and 3.104”.

6.0 CLASSIFIED DATA

All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED.

7.0 SOLICITATION CHANGES

For any changes and additional information for the solicitation please go to http://www.fbo.gov search by Solicitation Number N68335-17-R-0085.

PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

Note: All proposals shall remain valid for a period of 180 days from the time of solicitation closing.

EVALUATION FACTORS

The proposal shall be subdivided into the following sections, in the order listed, and shall be written to match the following format:

I. Technical Factor

A. Technical Approach Subfactor

* Manufacturing Capacity/ Facilities/ Personnel Resources

* Test/ ATP/Calibration Process and Capability

B. Management Subfactor

* Production Schedule

* Quality Assurance Program

* Subcontractor Vendor Management

* Small Business Utilization

II. Past Performance Factor

* Contract Data

* Relevancy

* Past Performance Information

III. Price Factor

1.0 VOLUME I: TECHNICAL

Note: This volume shall not contain any reference to cost or price aspects of the offer.

This section shall be prepared to address the Offeror’s understanding and ability to meet, or exceed, the Request for Proposal’s (RFP) Statement of Work (SOW) and Technical Data Package (TDP). All technical, logistics and program requirements, including reviews/meetings, integrated master schedules and Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) shall be discussed.

The Offeror shall provide all information and data required to conduct a thorough and complete technical evaluation. The Offeror shall address the following in the proposal:

I.A. Technical Approach: This section shall clearly discuss in detail the offeror’s approach to the production of the CAATS units in accordance with the Build-to-Print Technical Data Package (TDP) provided by the Government with the RFP. The requirements of the Statement of Work should be discussed as required below.

Manufacturing Capacity/Facilities/Personnel Resources: The Offeror shall describe the overall production capability, including facilities, plant layout, major equipment, personnel and space (square footage) considered necessary to perform successfully on both CAATS and PAS production as described in the Statement of Work (SOW). The Offeror shall address the availability and utilization of production resources in performance of Pilot Production Testing and production efforts to include Environmental Stress Screen (ESS) and Factory Acceptance Test Procedures (FATP). The Offeror shall also discuss the qualifications and experience of critical personnel that will be assigned to this CAATS System and PAS production. The Offeror shall discuss the production labor resources, broken down by specialty, such as welding certifications, that are required to successfully perform the requirements of the SOW and whether these personnel are currently employed by the company or will be hired to meet the resultant contractual requirements. The offeror shall indicate whether it has obtained Commercial Services Provider (ComSP) certification for CAATS.

Test/ATP/Calibration Process and Capability: The offeror shall provide a detailed narrative discussing the testing approach that will be taken to meet the requirements for the Production items. A detailed test process, capabilities, and list of test equipment shall be provided to verify how the offeror will determine the products meet the drawing specifications and are acceptable per the test parameters provided. Vendors shall provide definitions and other information sufficient to accurately describe their processes and procedures. The offeror shall provide detailed information explaining their testing standards and methods planned for the proposed CAATS and PAS production. Offerors shall describe how the calibration process for its units will conform with the Calibration requirements provided by the Government in the SOW.

I.B. Management: This section shall clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the management required to successfully perform on this contract and demonstrate its experience and plan for meeting, or exceeding, these requirements. The Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative and program schedule that addresses all SOW requirements including meetings, CDRLs, major component procurement/manufacture, final assembly, testing and delivery of the production units including the 2 Pilot Production units as specified in the solicitation. The Offeror shall describe in detail the project management processes which will be followed to track performance on the program and describe how program risk will be managed and mitigated. Additionally, the following information is required:

Production Schedule: The Offeror shall provide a detailed plan that addresses critical project milestones such as production, major component manufacture/procurement, final assembly, test, inspection/acceptance and delivery for the CAATS System and PAS as specified in the solicitation. The discussion shall include a schedule for each of the Pilot Production Units and locations for performing all planned tests. The offeror shall describe its processes for managing production risk.

Quality Assurance Program: The Offeror shall discuss and provide detailed information on the Offeror’s quality assurance program and meet or surpass ISO 9001:2008 certification., Model for Quality Assurance in Design, Development, Production, Installation and Servicing, or a recognized industry standard or process control system that is equivalent. Furthermore, the narrative shall describe the quality assurance equipment to be used to ensure compliance with the requirements of the SOW.

Subcontractor Vendor Management: The offeror shall discuss and provide detailed information on subcontractor vendor management program. Details shall include management oversight, cost and schedule control, and quality assurance.

Small Business Utilization:

(1) Strategies for using Small Business (SB) Concerns: All Offerors (Large and Small Businesses) shall address their strategies for utilizing SB concerns in the performance of the resulting contract, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement or sub-contractor. For purposes of this solicitation, SB shall also include Small Disadvantaged Business, Veteran-Owned SB, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned SB, HUBZone SB, Women-Owned SB, and Historically Black Colleges or Universities (HBCU) and Minority Institutions (MI). Each sub-category of SB shall be addressed. (This strategy is separate from, but shall be consistent with, the Small Business Sub-contracting Plan, if the Plan is required.) In describing its strategy for this solicitation, the Offeror shall, as applicable:

· Describe its approach to identifying SB Concerns;

· Describe the extent of participation of SB Concerns on the resulting contract, especially as principal sub-contractors;

· Describe the extent of commitment to use such SB Concerns;

· Describe the complexity and variety of the work SB Concerns are to perform;

· Identify what processes have been implemented to correct past inabilities to meet proposed goals;

2.0 VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE

General: The Offeror shall identify any contracts performed within five years of this proposal submission date which contain efforts similar to those required which were performed by the Offeror, the Offeror’s principal subcontractors, and critical team members. Commercial contracts may be included. List the contracts from the most relevant to the least relevant. In general, recent performance will be considered more relevant than older performance. When possible, these contracts should include at least five of the most relevant contracts for the prime contractor, five of the most relevant contracts for each critical team member, and two of the most relevant contracts for each principal subcontractor (as defined in Paragraph I, General Instructions). If proposing as joint venture/single legal entity (JV/SLE), the Offeror should provide the five past performance references for the JV/SLE. If less than the five past performance references are available for the JV/SLE, each member of the JV/SLE should individually submit the five references in addition to their JV/SLE references.

For each contract identified, provide the contract data, relevancy and past performance information as described below. Demonstrate the relevancy of the Offeror’s, and if applicable, the Offeror’s principal subcontractors’ or critical team members’ past performance with respect to the solicitation requirements.

For contracts that have Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Reports that are more than six months old, e.g., the completion date is more than six months before the due date for this Past Performance Volume; the Offeror will forward a copy of the CPARS Update Questionnaire (Attachment 1) to that contract customer’s Program Manager. For all contracts identified which do not have CPARS Reports the Offeror will forward a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 2) to that contract customer’s PCO, Administrative Contracting Officer, and Program Manager. All questionnaires shall be forwarded within two weeks from the RFP release date with enough lead-time so that responses can be received by the Government concurrent with the Government’s receipt of the Offeror’s proposal. The Offeror shall include instructions for the customers to send completed questionnaires within two weeks of its receipt via e-mail to Ms. Jennifer Betchen, Contracts, at Email: jennifer.betchen@navy.mil or via fax number: 732-323-7440, thereby allowing the customer approximately 2 weeks to complete their response. This submittal information is provided at the top of the questionnaires to facilitate the Offeror’s effort in meeting these instructions. The Offeror shall not conduct follow-up actions with regard to this questionnaire. The Government will ensure that the customers have received and will respond to the questionnaires. The Government may send any other questionnaires as necessary.

The Offeror shall provide written consent from their principal subcontractors and critical team members that will allow the Government to coordinate their Past Performance issue(s) with the Offeror. If the Offeror does not submit such written consent, then the Government will address any past performance issues directly with the principal subcontractor or critical team member and the Offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions. Consequently, for any principal subcontractors and critical team members that do not provide such written consent, provide a point of contact (name, address, phone number, and email address) with which the Government may coordinate these issues and obtain any responses as needed.

The Offeror shall provide written consent from their principal subcontractors and critical team members that will allow the Government to coordinate their Past Performance issue(s) with the Offeror. If the Offeror does not submit such written consent, then the Government will address any past performance issues directly with the principal subcontractor or critical team member and the Offeror will forfeit the opportunity to participate in any related discussions. Consequently, for any principal subcontractors and critical team members that do not provide such written consent, provide a point of contact (name, address, phone number, and email address) with which the Government may coordinate these issues and obtain any responses as needed.

Contract Data: Provide all the information identified below separately for each contract.

Contractor name

Relevancy: The Offeror shall explain what aspects of the contract are deemed relevant to the proposed contract. At a minimum, identify key or critical tasks of the solicitation and describe the extent of similarity between the effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements. Also identify where contract performance took place and provide rationale why it is relevant to the solicitation if the location is different from where the related effort is proposed to take place.

Past Performance Information: The Offeror shall provide a brief description of performance in delivering quality products in each of the following areas:

3.0 VOLUME III: PRICE PROPOSAL

3.1 Volume Content:

a. This Volume shall contain the information requested below and shall include a copy of Section B with the Contract Line Item (CLIN) and Range Quantities and for evaluation purposes, the Total Prices filled in (Supplies and/or Services and Prices and/or Costs).

Section B prices shall be provided separately in one digital data copy in MS Office 2010 Excel format on CD-ROM media. Spreadsheets shall not be protected. This volume shall also contain the following:

b. All price/cost and price/cost supporting information shall be contained in Section B and the price proposal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other technical volume including cover letters. Offerors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price/cost proposal.

3.2 Ground Rules and Assumptions:

a. As this is a competitive acquisition with adequate price competition anticipated, any price/cost documentation requested shall not be certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.406-2. However, in the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data as necessary from both the Offeror and subcontractors and may conduct negotiations with the Offeror, pursuant to FAR Part 15.403-4, in order to ensure a reasonable and realistic price. Further, the Offeror may be required to provide a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data prior to award, pursuant to FAR 15.406-2. Offeror shall acknowledge the requirement to provide additional cost or pricing information and certify the data prior to award if/when requested by the Government.

b. The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support its price as well as an explanation of all ground rules and assumptions that affect the price estimates. Any apparent imbalances in the pricing, high or low proposed prices as compared to historical data, or any other anomalies should be fully explained. Topics to be addressed include, but are not limited to, investments, programmatic variables (e.g., inflation/escalation, location, make/buy decisions, prime/subcontractor relationships, and business base concerns), etc.

3.3 Price Information:

a. Reasonableness and Consistency between the Technical and Price/Cost Volumes. Demonstrate that the unit prices and the total proposed price/cost are reasonable, realistic, and commensurate with the work required by the solicitation and the technical and management approaches identified in the Technical Volume of the proposal. Show traceability with the CLINS, proposed effort, and the prices. Refer to specific sections in the Technical Volume as needed to illustrate the consistency between the Price/Cost Volume and the Technical Volume. The Offeror shall explain any inconsistency between promised performance and price/cost, as well as any appearance of unbalanced pricing, in the proposal.

b. The Offeror shall identify the proposed prices/costs for each CLIN or SLIN as specified in Section B of this solicitation. The Offeror shall sum up the proposed Total Prices/Costs by contract year, and provide a total overall price/cost of the proposal using estimated quantities, and submit a complete Section B. For Fixed Priced CLINs/SLINs, the Schedule B Total Price is equal to the proposed unit price multiplied by the Section B Estimated Quantity for that CLIN.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror on the basis of its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. Offerors are advised that the proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for an award, if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation, in accordance with the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions; however, award may be based upon the initial offer. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. 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 in the proposal may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and risk assessment.

Evaluation of an offeror’s proposal will be based on the information presented in the written proposal along with input obtained from outside sources relevant to past performance. Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments may be deemed to be reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. Significant deficiencies or lack of responses to factors or subfactors may be used as a basis for eliminating a proposal from further consideration. Additionally, the rating of any performance risk factor or subfactor as High Risk may also be used as a basis for eliminating a proposal from further consideration.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors of Technical, Past Performance, and Price, which are listed below in descending order of importance, with Technical more important than Past Performance which is more important than Price. Subfactors under Technical - Technical Approach (A) and Management (B) are listed in descending order of importance with Technical Approach (A) more important than Management (B). The elements listed under the subfactors of Technical Approach (A) and Management (B) are not separately weighted or separately rated. However, all of the elements must be addressed under the subfactors of Technical Approach (A) and Management (B) and will be evaluated as part of the subfactors. The elements under Past Performance are not separately weighted or separately rated. However, all of the elements must be addressed under the factor of Past Performance and will be evaluated as part of the factor.

The Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price; however, Price is an important factor and should not be ignored. As the ratings of proposals in relation to non-cost factors become more equal, Price will become more of a deciding factor in selecting the best value offer.

I. Technical Factor

A. Technical Approach Subfactor

* Manufacturing Capacity/ Facilities/ Personnel Resources

* Test/ ATP/Calibration Process and Capability

B. Management Subfactor

* Production Schedule

* Quality Assurance Program

* Subcontractor Vendor Management

* Small Business Utilization II. Past Performance Factor

*Contract Data

* Relevancy

* Past Performance Information

III. Price Factor

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. 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 of the Technical factor(s)/subfactors, if applicable, a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, and deficiencies of the proposal. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement and is assessed by the identification of weakness(es). Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating or an “Unacceptable” Technical Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition. Offerors are also advised that a Marginal rating may make the proposal unawardable.

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. A Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will then be assigned, which addresses the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the required effort successfully based on the Offeror’s (including subcontractors’ and/or JV/SLE team members’) relevant past performance and systemic improvement. 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. In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance, without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unknown” which is considered a “Neutral” rating. Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has 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.

PART B. SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror's approach.

I.A. Technical Approach (subfactor of Technical)

The evaluation of the Offeror’s Technical Approach subfactor will be based on the information presented in the Offeror’s written proposal and how it addresses its understanding and ability to meet, or exceed, the solicitation’s technical requirements. The proposals will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach will meet, or exceed, the requirements and the details to support those claims. The proposals will be evaluated to assess the risk of whether the Offeror’s methods and approach in meeting the requirements provide the Government with a high level of confidence to ensure successful performance.

The evaluation will include an assessment of the testing approach that will be taken to meet the requirements for the Production items. Offeror’s proposed approach and the details to support claims to meet the requirements of Manufacturing Capacity/Facilities/Personnel Resources will be evaluated, including an assessment of production labor resources and the Offeror’s critical personnel. The evaluation will include whether they have obtained ComSP certification for the CAATS and PAS.

The Offeror’s test process, capabilities and test equipment will be assessed to determine if it meets the technical requirements of the CAATS and PAS Solicitation. The evaluation will include an assessment of how the offeror will determine the units produced meet the drawing specifications and are acceptable per the test parameters provided. Information such as definitions and other information sufficient to accurately describe their processes and procedures, as well as information explaining their testing standards and methods planned for the proposed CAATS and PAS production will be evaluated. The evaluation will include an assessment of how the calibration process for the offeror’s unit will conform with the Calibration requirements provided by the Government in the SOW.

I.B. Management (subfactor of Technical)

The evaluation of the Offeror’s Management subfactor will be based on the information presented in the Offeror’s written proposal and how it addresses its understanding and ability to meet, or exceed, the management requirements. The proposals will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach will meet, or exceed, the requirements and the details to support those claims. The proposals will be evaluated to assess the risk of whether the Offeror’s methods and approach in meeting the requirements provide the Government with a high level of confidence to ensure successful performance.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s schedule for critical project milestones such as meetings CDRLS , major component manufacture/procurement, final assembly, test, inspection/acceptance and delivery CAATS System and PAS PPU and production units as specified in the solicitation. The evaluation will include an assessment of its processes for managing and mitigating production risk. The offeror’s schedule for testing each of the Pilot Production Units and locations for performing all planned tests will be evaluated.

The evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s proposed approach and the details to support claims that its Quality Assurance Program shall implement and conform to ISO 9001:2008, Model for Quality Assurance in Design, Development, Production, Installation and Servicing, or a recognized industry standard or process control system that is equivalent, and that any quality assurance equipment to be used to ensure compliance is identified and described.

The offeror’s subcontractor vendor management program will be evaluated to include management oversight, cost and schedule control, and quality assurance.

The Offeror’s strategy for utilizing Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns will be evaluated. Such evaluations will focus on the Offeror’s approach to identifying SB concerns, extent of participation of SB Concerns on this contract, the complexity and variety of work the SB Concerns are to perform, and processes which have been implemented to correct past inabilities to meet proposed goals.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

The evaluation will include an assessment of the following elements as detailed under Past Performance:

* Contract Data

* Relevancy

* Past Performance Information

The elements under Past Performance are not separately weighted or separately rated. However, all of the elements must be addressed under the factor of Past Performance and will be evaluated as part of the factor.

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 how relevant a recent effort is to this instant effort. Similarity of the service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontracting/teaming may all be considered in the relevancy determination. Secondly, the Government will perform a confidence assessment by evaluating 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 resolved past performance problems will be evaluated. In the case that an Offeror has no recent/relevant performance record 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. The Offeror will receive a rating Neutral Confidence.

3.0 PRICE

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, and 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.

All CLINs will be included in the total evaluated price. For evaluation purposes only, price shall be based on the following quantities listed below multiplied by the proposed unit price for each Fixed Price CLIN (the evaluation will not bind the Government to purchase any of the items beyond the specified minimum quantity):

Evaluated Quantities

100 each

1 Lot

1 Lot

1 Lot

1 Lot

1 Lot

1 Lot

1 Lot

CDRL A008

1 Lot

47 each

2 each

7 each

7 each

1 Lot

1 Lot

1 Lot

1 Lot

1 Lot

33 each

20 each

12 each

12 each

1 Lot

1 Lot

1 Lot

1 Lot

CDRL A008

1 Lot

***Total Evaluated Amount will be a summation of the evaluated prices computed for CLINs 0001 through CLIN 0030.

The unit pricing for the production units shall include the cost for the production acceptance testing.

Overall Summary Level for all CLINs

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.

PART C EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

Evaluations in support of this source selection shall employ an adjectival rating method for rating contractor proposals against evaluation factors and subfactors identified within Section M of the solicitation. The appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor and subfactor, as required, subsequent to and consistent with the narrative evaluation, which will indicate a proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks. The Government will utilize a separate technical/risk rating for this effort.

1.0 Separate Technical/Risk Rating Methodology Adjectival Ratings: The separate technical/risk evaluations will utilize the separate technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1 below.

2.0 Technical Risk Ratings: Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in Table 2 below.

3.0 Past Performance Evaluation. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

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

3.1.1 Recency. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

3.1.2 Relevance. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming

For purposes of this solicitation, there are four levels of relevancy, as shown in Table 3. References that are deemed “Not Relevant” will not be considered in assigning the Performance Confidence Assessment rating.