Solicitation Amendment W911QY25RA0180002 SF 30.pdf

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers 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 electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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.)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section I - Contract Clauses

Additional Information/Notes

The following clauses were added:

FAR Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Number Title Effective Date Alternate/ Deviation

Variation Effective Date

52.232-25 Prompt Payment. Jan 2017 DFARS Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Number Title Effective Date Alternate/ Deviation

Variation Effective Date

252.227-7016Rights in Bid or Proposal Information. Jan 2025

The following clauses were deleted:

FAR Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Number Title Effective Date Alternate/ Deviation

Variation Effective Date

52.211-8 Time of Delivery. (Alternate III) Jun 1997 Alternate IIIApr 1984 52.219-13 Notice of Set-Aside of Orders. (Alternate I) Mar 2020 Alternate I Mar 2020 FAR Clauses Incorporated by Full Text

52.219-28 Postaward Small Business Program Rerepresentation.

(Alternate I)

(Jan 2025)Alternate I(Mar 2020)

Alternate I . As prescribed in (c)(2), substitute the following paragraph (h)(1) for (Mar 2020) 19.309 paragraph (h)(1) of the basic clause:

(h)(1) The Contractor represents its small business size status for each one of the NAICS codes assigned to this contract.

NAICS Code Small business concern (yes/no)

W911QY25RA0180002

[ ]Contracting Officer to insert NAICS codes.

DFARS Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Number Title Effective Date Alternate/ Deviation

Variation Effective Date

252.204-7020NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements. Nov 2023

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

The following clauses were deleted:

DFARS Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Number Title Effective Date Alternate/ Deviation

Variation Effective Date

252.204-7019 Notice of NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements.

Nov 2023

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

** Updated 08AUG2025 **

The government may utilize AI in the evaluations.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in Proposal Evaluation

Use of AI tools in Support of Evaluations: The Government may employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of offeror proposals. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with request for task order proposal / solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk.

Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgements, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, best value determinations, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed Government personnel. The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any AI tool.

Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: The AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. The AI tool will be an output-only system.

Any generated report data is not saved. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors ranked in their order of importance: (1) Technical (Cut & Sew Manufacturing), (2) Quality, (3)Past Performance and (4) Cost/Price. Technical is more important than quality, quality is more important than past performance. All of the non-cost/price factors when combined are significantly more important to Cost/Price, in accordance with FAR 15.304(e)(1). The Government is willing to pay more if an increase in the technical merit of the proposal under the Best Value Continuum tradeoff process justifies and is in the best interest of the Government. However, the Cost/Price Factor may become more significant in contributing to the source selection decision if competing proposals are technically comparable.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the technical and quality factors. Past Performance must receive a rating of no less than Neutral Confidence.

NOTE: Offerors are being cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. It is anticipated that only one (1) award will be made.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical, Quality and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors' proposals are substantially the same.

Evaluation Factors and Supporting Information

Evaluation Factor

Rating Method

Phase I

1 W. L. Gore Certification Acceptable or unacceptable

Phase II

Technical (Cut & Sew Manufacturing) (Factor)

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

3 Quality (Factor) Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Past Performance (Factor)

Confidence Rating

5 Cost/Price (Factor) Price Reasonableness

Phase I : Factor 1 - W. L. Gore Certification

In order to be able to produce and deliver ensembles under this contract, the prime contractor or its industry partner must provide documentation showing current certification from W. L. Gore that it is authorized to use its material for cut and sew purposes. This is a mandatory requirement of this procurement. If the offeror does not demonstrate that they meet the requirement at the time of proposal submission, they will be eliminated from consideration for award and no additional volumes of the offeror's proposal will be evaluated.

Phase II: Factors 2-5

Factor 2: Technical/Cut & Sew Manufacturing - The Technical/Cut & Sew Manufacturing Factor will receive a combined technical/risk rating of each Offeror's approach to performing the cut and sew manufacturing effort for the IFS to the SOW.

Offeror's ability to provide safe storage, protection and management of the high volume of Government Furnished Material to be provided under the contract will be evaluated. Also, the packaging, handling, storage, and shipment of the completed ensembles are critical for meeting the shelf-life requirements, these are clearly defined within the SOW/MIL-DTL 43976D, dated 24July 2018.

Program risk will be evaluated to ensure the offeror has a sufficient approach to address the technical and schedule risks associated with the requirements of the contract. This is inclusive of the offeror's ability to immediately being production of the IFS systems, their approach to effectively manage subcontractors (if applicable), materials ordering, production schedules, shipping and delivery, and accurate invoicing.

The government will also evaluate the risk reduction method proposed to reduce the chances that the production facility will stop production for more than five (5) consecutive days or more than fifteen (15) days within a thirty (30) day period.

The government will evaluate the offeror's planned approach to the first article tests, as well as the government's production lot testing.

The government will evaluate the proposed method to maximize production capacity for each size and describe how a surge requirement will be met from 1,000 to 5,500 integrated foot ware systems every 90 days should the need arise. The government will evaluate the offeror's experience in producing and assembling items of this type and whether or not the offeror's manufacturing capability is internal to the offeror's company or if some or all parts of the manufacturing process will be the responsibility of a subcontractor, IAW the SOW.

Factor 3: Quality Factor. The Quality management approach will receive a combined technical/risk rating of each offeror's approach to quality. The IFS are critical life support items and hence require implementation of higher-level contract quality requirements. The offeror is required to have a current ISO9001 Quality Management System certificate. The Government will evaluate how the offeror will maintain a quality management system, ISO 9001 Quality Management System certification, which will be incorporated in FAR 52.246-11, Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement. The Government will evaluate each Offeror's likelihood of success in maintaining quality management and performing quality assurance for all IFS in the SOW. The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed processes and final inspection procedures.

Factor 4: Past Performance Factor. Each offeror's past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy, and quality to establish an overall confidence rating.

Factor 5: Cost/Price. Pricing will be evaluated for fair and reasonable price IAW FAR Part 15.4 procedures. The analytical techniques and procedures prescribed in FAR 15.404-1may be used singularly, or in combination with others to ensure the costs are fair and reasonable.

Total Price will be compared for award determination. There is an expectation of competition for this requirement; thus, Offerors are cautioned to present their best priced proposal up-front. The Offeror's price proposal shall represent the Offeror's best effort to respond to the solicitation. Price must be determined to be fair and reasonable to be eligible for award.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1 (g), proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Offerors shall use sufficient detail and provide documentation to explain any potential lack of balance. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals will be subject to a comprehensive review and assessment by the Source Selection Team (SST) against all source selection criteria stated herein. The evaluation process will rate the offeror's ability to perform the work in accordance with all aspects of requirements outlined in the solicitation and the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed price.

The Source Selection Team (SST) will provide a detailed evaluation and assign a combined technical risk rating for Factors 2 and 3, Factor 2. Technical Capability and Factor 3. Quality. Factor 4. The Past Performance factor will receive only a performance confidence assessment. The Price Proposal, Factor 5, will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer and/or Price Analyst in accordance with the evaluation criteria established.

1.The Technical Factor

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below) This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1 -

COMBINED

TECHNICAL/RISK

RATINGS

Color Rati ng

Description

Blue Outs tandi ng

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Goo d

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acce ptabl e

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Mar ginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unac cepta ble

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is not awardable.

TABLE 2

Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unaccepta ble

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2.Quality Factor: In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement(AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating the Quality Factor and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 and 2 above).

The evaluation approach will combine technical and risk assessments of each offeror's quality management approach, focusing on their ability to maintain a quality management system (QMS) and ensure quality assurance for critical life support items (IFS).

- The evaluation will specifically examine the offeror's ability to maintain and implement a

QMS.

- This includes the offeror's current ISO 9001 certification and their proposed methods for maintaining this certification throughout the contract.

- The evaluation will consider how the offeror plans to integrate the ISO 9001certification with the higher-level contract quality requirements, as outlined in FAR 52.246-11.

Evaluation Criteria:

- The government will evaluate the offeror's:

o Proposed Processes: The specific methods and procedures the offeror will use to manage quality.

o Final Inspection Procedures: The offeror's approach to final inspection and quality control of IFS.

o Likelihood of Success: The government will assess the offeror's overall ability to meet the quality requirements and maintain a robust QMS.

3.Past Performance Factor: The Government will evaluate the offeror's record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the

SOW.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror's (and major subcontractor's) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. For the purposes of this SSP/Requirement, major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror's overall team who are expected to perform40 percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that nonmeaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a "neutral confidence rating" and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files(Contractor performance assessment records - CPARS) or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 315210.

Note: For best value determination purposes, a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is considered more favorably than "Neutral Confidence".

c. The past performance factor considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

i. RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror's past performance.

"Recent" means any contract under which performance has taken place within the last three (3) years as of issuance of this solicitation.

ii. RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant, recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 2) will be used to establish what is relevant. Relevant efforts means performance that demonstrates the Offeror's experience with cut and sew operation of military (preferably Chemical and Biological) garments of high volume and utilizing fabrics that provide protection against military unique and toxic industrial chemicals, or other products similar to the effort required by this contract.

Relevant contracts are also defined as those encompassing similar scope in cost, complexity, Integrated Product Support(IPS)/logistics functions, configuration management, system engineering, and production requirements as this contract requires.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy

Ratings

Rating Definition

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.

Past Performance In performing the Past Performance factor evaluation, evaluators will apply the following rating schemes at Tables 3.

iii. Quality Assessment: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror's past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. Additional past performance information may be obtained and considered, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with CORs, Program Managers/Government Leads, Contracting Officers and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

TABLE 3 -

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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 facto 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.

3. Findings Definitions

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

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

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

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

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

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may beheld. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions. The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without discussions. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussion, if, during the evaluation, itis determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Discussions may be conducted with all Offerors to enhance Government understanding of proposals, allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal, or facilitate the Government's evaluation process. Should discussions be conducted, Offeror responses will be considered in making the selection decision. Proposal changes submitted by the Offeror in response to Evaluation Notices will be subject to evaluation. Proposal revisions, to include any final price adjustments, will be requested simultaneously if discussions are conducted. Offerors shall submit all proposal changes, technical and price, in response to Evaluation Notices. Any portion of the proposal that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated and dated. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its Title.

10 GENERAL GREENE AVE, NATICK MA 01760-5011

NATICK, MA 01760-5011

UNITED STATES

CHRISTINE HALAMOUTIS, EMAIL: CHRISTINE.M.HALAMOUTIS.CIV@ARMY.MIL TELEPHONE: 520-717-8571 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: