SPE7MX14R0106_-_Section_L M_-_Updated_-_7-11-14.docx

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED

SPE7MX-14-R-0106 – Attachment 2 – Supplemental Sections L & M

PAGE

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. Facsimile offers will not be accepted.

2. This acquisition is being solicited under FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation. Pricing for all of the solicited NSNs is due by the closing date listed on page 1 of the solicitation. Please see Section M for evaluation procedures. Failure to submit a price for each CLIN, for each year (including options), for each item identified as requiring a price, in accordance with the All or None provision of the solicitation, may result in an unacceptable price proposal and thus, the offeror may not be considered for award.

A complete technical proposal from any prospective offeror intending to offer is due by the closing date listed on page 1 of the solicitation. Offerors will not be eligible for award unless a complete technical proposal is submitted by the solicitation closing date listed on page 1 of this solicitation. Technical proposals rated as technically unacceptable will be rejected and not considered for award.

3. Proposals will be evaluated in terms of both price and other evaluation factors in accordance with the evaluation criteria contained in this solicitation. The evaluation factors are deemed essential in order to determine which offer best meets the Government’s needs. Offerors should thoroughly read and understand the terms and conditions contained in the solicitation. If the Government accepts the offer, it will contractually bind the contractor to the terms and conditions of the solicitation. Failure to provide the information requested by any of the evaluation factors identified below will be considered as a “no response”, and may render the offeror’s proposal technically unacceptable and preclude it from any further consideration for contract award. Offerors shall ensure that the information contained in their proposal is factual, accurate and complete. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically low in price, will be considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements, which may preclude it from further consideration. If either the pricing or technical portion of an offeror’s proposal is rated unacceptable, the entire proposal will be ineligible for award.

4. Proposal Format

4.1. To facilitate evaluation, the format described below shall be followed.

4.2. Offerors shall mark one copy of their submission as the “original” which covers all sections of their proposal.

4.3. Written proposals shall be submitted in three volumes in loose-leaf binders as outlined below. Offerors shall attach a binder cover sheet to the outer cover of each volume, which clearly identifies each volume by volume number, volume name, and copy number (i.e., Volume I, Business Management Plan, copy 2 of 5), RFP number SPE7MX-14-R-0106, date of submission, and the offeror's name. This information shall also be placed on the edge of the binder where it can be seen when placed in a vertical position in a storage cabinet. Proposals shall be submitted to the following locations:.

VIA MAIL:

DLA LAND AND MARITIME

Strategic Acquisition Program Directorate (SAPD) ATTN: Bret Griffin, DLA Land and Maritime, ZCA

PO BOX 3990

COLUMBUS, OH 43218-3990

VIA COURIER:

Lobby (Bid Box), Bldg. 20 3990 E. Broad Street

COLUMBUS, OH 43213

VIA FACSIMILE: NOT AUTHORIZED

PROPOSAL PART

OF COPIES

Delivery for Customer Direct shipments: Enter delivery for CD shipments in Section F of the solicitation in the spaces provided for CD delivery

Part 1 – Completed Section B

Part 2 – Pricing Methodology

PART 1 - Business Management Plan

Tab A – Implementation and Ramp-up

Tab B – Process

Tab C – Quality Assurance

Tab D – Information Technology

PART 2 - Surge and Sustainment Proposal – submitted via WICAP and a hard copy submitted with offer

Part 1 – Past Performance

Part 2 - Financial

4.4. The offeror's proposal shall be prepared on standard 8.5 x 11-inch paper. The proposal pages shall be numbered, printed on two sides, and punched with a 3-hole punch. The offeror must ensure the printed area’s font size is no less than 12 point, black font color, Times New Roman. If charts or graphics are needed, submission on 11 x 17-inch paper is acceptable, but shall constitute 4 pages when printed double-sided.

4.5. In addition to the copies requested above, offerors shall also submit a CD which contains all parts of the proposal. Each volume of the proposal (original only) shall also be submitted on a separate CD. All CDs shall be readable on an IBM PC-compatible system running Microsoft Office 2007. Each CD shall be clearly labeled and each label shall state the offeror’s name, solicitation number, date of submission, and the proposal volume (name and number) contained on the CD. If more than one CD is required for a volume, the CD shall be labeled as CD "x" of "y" (i.e., CD 1 of 2). Your proposal will be rejected if you fail to submit pricing on a CD.

4.6. Proposals shall be clear, concise, indexed, and logically assembled. All pages of each proposal part shall be appropriately numbered and be identified with company name and solicitation number. Consecutive page numbering within tabs is preferred (e.g., Page A-5 identifies Tab A, Page 5). Additionally, for document control purposes, proposal changes provided after the receipt of the initial proposal shall be submitted in red in order to differentiate the changes from the original information.

4.7. If there are any discrepancies between the CD/DVD and the original hardcopy submitted in response to this RFP, the hardcopy version will take precedence.

5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The executive summary should contain enough information that the Government may become acquainted with the major points of your offer.

6. VOLUME I

6.1. PART 1: SECTION B SPREADSHEET

6.1.1. The offeror’s proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort in response to the solicitation as the KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient evaluation among the most highly rated proposals.

6.1.2. Offerors must provide pricing for all of the NSNs solicited. Offerors shall input prices for CLINs 0001 through 0004 into the solicitation’s Section B spreadsheet and supply the solicitation’s Section B spreadsheet on an CD as described above. CLINs 0001 and 0002 will be combined to arrive at the CDUP for the DLA consumable items. Offerors will also input a stock unit price (SUP, CLIN 0003) for both the DLA and service managed NSNs in the Section B spreadsheet. CLINs 0001 and 0004 will be combined to arrive at the FUP for the DLA consumable items. Hard copies of the Section B spreadsheet are not required and are not included in the page limit for Volume I.

6.1.3. Please enter CLIN 0002 and 0004 annual price adjustments in section I of the solicitation.

6.1.4. If a contractor submits an offer for Government surplus material, it must indicate the quantity of surplus that is available and provide all documentation IAW DLAD 52.211-9000. The contractor must submit pricing for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0004 for both the surplus and new material. If Government surplus is not approved, the pricing offered for new material will be used for evaluations. If the available quantity of Government surplus material does not exceed the estimated total quantity for the five year term of the contract, the difference between the estimated total quantity and the available surplus must be supplied with new material.

6.1.5. Delivery: If offerors are able to improve upon TDD for Customer Direct (CD) orders, enter your proposed delivery in Section F. Offerors that cannot meet TDD standards for CD orders will not be considered for award. Offerors will also propose a delivery time for DLA/DLR Stock Orders on the Section B Spreadsheet tabs entitled “Pricing - DLA” and “Pricing – DLR”. If no entry is made in this column for an NSN(s), it will be determined that the offeror is complying with the desired delivery. The final negotiated proposed delivery for each NSN awarded will become the Government’s required delivery at time of award for DLA/DLR Stock Delivery Orders.

6.2. PART 2: PRICING METHODOLOGY

6.2.1. The offeror’s proposal shall contain a written narrative to accompany the pricing that explains the basis for and methodology used in developing the pricing for each CLIN. Additionally, this narrative shall include the differentiation of the unique elements for the price proposals for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, and 0006.

6.2.2. This section should also include the required Price Pending methodology for CLIN 0005 which should be consistent with the FAR and DLAD.

7. VOLUME II

7.1. PART 1: BUSINESS MANAGMETN PLAN (BMP)

Offerors shall address the elements listed below. The primary goal of the BMP is to demonstrate the offeror’s ability to meet the Government’s requirement as set forth in the solicitation.

7.1.1. Tab A – IMPLEMENTATION and RAMP-UP

The goal of this section of the BMP is to demonstrate how the offeror will perform the necessary operations and responsibilities in order to be in position to meet all performance requirements at the end of the Implementation stage. At a minimum, the following shall be addressed:

· Identify the chronological sequence of events that will be accomplished during the implementation stage starting with contract award, infrastructure and inventory build-up, business partnerships, and ending with taking over order fulfillment requirements at the start of full execution.

· Describe plans to verify and validate the supply chain management approach and operation which ensures a near seamless transition from the Government's current to the proposed support approach.

· Identify the contractor furnished warehouse facilities and the facilities capability to accommodate environmental and storage requirements.

· In clear and understandable terms list all actions that the Government should perform in order for the contractor to successfully perform its transition to full implementation.

· The offeror shall propose a ramp-up approach which accounts for the depletion of Government inventories and the offeror taking over the delivery of supplies.

7.1.2. Tab B – PROCESS

7.1.2.1. The goal of the proposal submissions relating to Process is to demonstrate how the offeror will perform the necessary operations and responsibilities in order to meet all performance requirements during contract execution. The offeror shall provide the information listed below:

· Describe corporate structure identifying the responsibilities of the offeror and all critical subcontractors relating to the management and oversight of this effort, at transition, implementation and execution stages.

· A "critical subcontractor" is defined as any subcontractor, team member, or consultant (at any tier) designated by the prime contractor as being necessary to the perform management and operational oversight activities required by the solicitation.

· Identify the contractor furnished warehouse facilities and the facilities capability to accommodate environmental regulations.

· List all actions in clear and understandable terms that the Government is to perform in order for the contractor to successfully perform its transition to full implementation

7.1.2.2. The offeror shall also define the planned approach to:

· Identify and describe the initial warehouse operations, stocking levels by NSN and how the offeror anticipates optimizing and/or changing the locations and level of stock over time.

· Manage industrial preparedness through configuration management, obsolescence management, and supplier base maintenance. The proposal should include:

· A description of the offeror’s proposed process for ensuring accurate and timely knowledge of configuration changes and processes for incorporating changes into the forecast/inventory plan.

· A description of the process to be used for notifying the Government of obsolescence and/or unavailability of materials or components.

· A description of the process for notifying DLA Land and Maritime of configuration changes to the project’s vehicles which would alter the items needed to support the project’s vehicles. This should outline how all pertinent information (i.e. part numbers affected, specific vehicles affected, updated supplier information, updated part numbers, updated drawing information, timeline of updated part(s) implementation, etc.) shall be provided to the Contracting Officer, to include appropriate timelines.

· Develop new sources of supply, when necessary.

· Manage and maintain sources of supply.

· Supporting the solicitation’s metrics of OTD, MA, CR, QA, and BO. Specifically discuss your company’s planned approach to support the Cost Reduction (CR) metric in order to help drive DLA’s goal of material cost reduction.

· Meet required delivery schedules, addressing warehousing resources to be used. Describe arrangements with manufacturers and other parts suppliers that enable timely support.

· Identifying/measuring and additional metrics and procedures by which you will measure and continuously improve performance under the contract.

· Expeditiously respond to and meet both planned and unplanned variability in customer demand.

· Implementing data/information sharing across the supply chain management enterprise including OEMs, Government agencies, and other logistics providers.

· Expeditiously meet production variability and unplanned disruption in sourcing, manufacture and delivery capacity/capability, including diminishing manufacturing sources.

· Continually assessing and evaluating the impact on the supply chain for compliance with the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), laws and regulations, DoD standards, and state and local laws.

· Provide 24/7/365 customer service support to include:

· Responsibilities of the contractor’s Customer Service Representative(s)

· Describing how your company will monitor customer support and customer satisfaction.

· Response and resolution procedures and policies regarding customer problems and returns.

· An outline of the offeror’s plan to provide support to customers, including the titles and qualifications for the representative(s) that will be providing this support.

· Ensure consistent fulfillment at the levels specified in the PWS.

· Perform supply chain modeling and simulation to continually provide for design, analysis and optimization of the end to end supply chain.

· Execute Transportation - Ability of transportation provider(s) to meet delivery requirements, in-transit visibility, and proof of shipment.

7.1.3. Tab C – QUALITY ASSURANCE

The goal of the proposal submissions relating to Quality Assurance is to demonstrate that the offeror has the systems necessary to meet the performance standards while ensuring the quality and conformance of the NSNs supplied. The submissions at a minimum shall address:

· A description of the offeror’s quality control and assurance systems.

· How the offeror will ensure product conformance as well as ensuring criteria standards for testing, inspection and marking are met.

· A description of the offeror’s process regarding the determination of configuration changes and/or obsolete materials.

· Describe its process for initiating, identifying, processing, and notifying DLA Land and Maritime of any Engineering Change Proposals (ECP) initiated by the offeror or the services.

· A description of the offeror’s process for qualifying new sources.

· Commercial warranty provisions and return/exchange program for incorrect or defective parts.

· The offeror’s system for obtaining, handling, and supplying OEM certified parts and parts requiring special certifications, or acquisition of parts requiring special testing including First Article Testing (FAT).

7.1.4. Tab D – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The goal of the proposal submissions relating to Information Technology is to demonstrate that the offeror has the information and data systems, connectivity, and capability to meet all performance requirements. The submissions at a minimum shall address:

· Information technologies that will be utilized for any resulting contract.

· How each technology will be used in the performance of the contract.

· Corresponding timeframes for implementation.

· How the offeror’s IT and system capabilities can and will adapt based on fluctuating (varying demand pictures) data while maintaining seamless support

· Offeror’s timeframe and anticipated process to interface with ELLIS.

· Offeror expectations surrounding Government Furnished Information (GFI) and its plan of action should the “expected” GFI not be available or provided

7.2. PART 2: SURGE AND SUSTAINMENT

7.2.1. SURGE & SUSTAINMENT REQUIREMENTS: Information will be required from the offeror as specified in Provisions DLAD 52.217-9008 Surge and Sustainment (S&S) Evaluation and DLAD 52.217-9009 Surge and Sustainment (S&S) Pricing. The offeror is required to submit their Capability Assessment Plan via the WICAP-eCAP website (https://wicap.hq.dla.mil) and include the hard copy original (plus one copy) with the proposal.

8. VOLUME II

8.1. PART 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

8.1.1. Past Performance will be rated using 2 factors, 1) Past Performance Relevance and 2) Past Performance Risk.

8.1.2. The Past Performance Relevance rating will be based on the quality and direct relevance of the contracts an offeror provides for past performance review. The sections below describe the contract information the Government desires for review.

8.1.2.1. The offeror shall describe the extent of experience similar to the proposed contract requirements, of its own corporate entity and any partner, joint venture, subcontractor, etc., who will be performing on the proposed contract. Offerors should provide a list of relevant contracts limited to 10, commercial or Government, performed within the last 3 years. For commercial contracts, the offeror shall provide a point of contact, address, telephone number, average dollar value of the contract per annum, period of performance, a listing of the NSNs provided and a description of the contractor’s responsibilities under the contract. For Government contracts, the offeror should provide the contract number, Government agency, point of contact, telephone number, dollar value (average annual dollar value if indefinite quantity type contract), period of performance, a sample listing of items provided, and a description of the contractor’s responsibilities under the contract. In addition to relevant contracts, the offeror should describe the extent of experience of their own corporate entity in supplying customers that are relevant to the requirements of this solicitation, including names of customers and points of contact. If the offeror has no past performance history, it should provide information regarding the experience of its key management and/or technical personnel on contracts for the same or similar NSNs. Contracts performed by any predecessor company for the same or similar NSNs should also be reported. In addition the offeror shall:

· Provide the average number of orders processed and average number of line NSNs delivered weekly for the contracts listed above, based on the latest yearly reporting period.

· For the contracts listed above, identify the metrics measured during contract performance and the Offeror’s performance history against those stated/contracted metrics.

· Offerors should list any “problems or discrepancies (i.e., late shipments, shortages, overages, damage, defects, misshipments, customer satisfaction, etc.) experienced in the past 2 years for the contracts reported in past performance and include a brief description of how these problems were resolved.

· Identify quality awards, distinctions, or certifications received (and dates) that indicate a high quality process for performing the work required/concept to be demonstrated. Such awards or certifications may include private sector awards or certifications.

· Describe the extent of any past performance in providing contingency support on the past and current contracts identified as relevant to this effort. The contractor shall also identify and describe the extent of its past performance in providing surge and sustainment support on any contracts, commercial or Government, within the past ten years.

· For each relevant contract identified above, the contractor shall provide a point of contact, current contact information (including telephone and email address), and specific written authorization allowing the Government to contact that company/individual and obtain information regarding the applicable contractor’s scope of responsibilities, performance and quality under the contract.

· Identify any direct experience with the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) process, and/or your company’s management of industrial preparedness through configuration management, obsolescence management, and supplier base maintenance.

· Identify any direct technical/engineering experience with the project’s vehicles (1) Abrams Main Battle Tank, 2) Stryker Family of Vehicles, 3) Light Armored Vehicle Family of Vehicles, 4) Cougar, 5) Buffalo, and 6) RG-31).

8.1.2.2. The offeror shall describe the extent of its past performance in the past two years for the contracts reported in response to paragraph above for:

· Subcontracting with small, SDB, woman-owned small business concerns

· Subcontracting with AbilityOne entities

8.1.2.3. The Government may obtain and use past performance information from sources other than those identified by the contractor. The Government will determine which customers to survey and will forward questionnaires and receive the responses. Adverse past performance for which a contractor did not previously have an opportunity to comment will be handled in accordance with FAR 15.306(b) or through discussions.

8.1.2.4. Intentional failure to fully report requested past performance information might adversely impact the evaluation of the contractor's proposal. Failure by the contractor to provide evidence of performance on contracts of a similar nature in terms of period of performance, size and complexities of the requirement provided will result in the Government evaluating past performance of no relevant history. In the case of a contractor without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. An evaluation of neutral/unknown confidence will not eliminate the contractor from the overall review and evaluation of their proposal for this RFP. More recent and relevant performance may have a greater impact on the evaluation/assessment than less recent or less relevant effort.

8.1.3. Past Performance Risk will be based on an evaluation of the offerors past performance on the contracts provided for review. In addition, the offeror’s Past Performance Information Retrieval System-Statistical Reporting (PPIRS-SR) Ratings will be reviewed to aid in the Government’s Past Performance Risk rating

8.1.3.1. Past Performance Information Retrieval System-Statistical Reporting (PPIRS-SR) Ratings for Past Performance.

Performance Risk will be assessed based on delivery history and quality history obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System Statistical Reporting (PPIRS-SR) for the applicable category of goods being procured using the Federal Supply Class (FSC). The Government may also consider general trends of a vendor in the areas of on-time delivery and/or quality that may not be reflected in PPIRS-SR for the particular FSC/NAICS and information from various other sources such as, contracting agency experience with the contractor, previous contract history available from DCMA, etc..

Although PPIRS-SR scores are listed by FSC, each offeror will be assigned a single PPIRS-SR final evaluation score by the Contracting Officer because this project requires support for multiple FSCs. The score will take into account the offeror’s delivery and quality scores for all of the project’s applicable FSCs.

If negative information from sources other than PPIRS-SR or the contracting agency’s own experience impacts the evaluation, the affected offeror will be given the opportunity to discuss that information.

The award will be made to the company whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government based on the factors outlined in the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced proposal or the highest rated (lowest risk) offer.

Past Performance Information Retrieval System – Statistical Reporting (PPIRS-SR):

PPIRS- SR provides past delivery and quality performance information. The sources of data include: the Department of Navy’s Product Data Reporting and Evaluation Program (PDREP), the Army's Logistics Modernization Program - Virtual Contracting Enterprise Reporting and Delinquency System (LMP-VCERADS), the Air Force’s JO18 (Delivery) and GO21 (Deficiency Reporting Information System), the Joint Deficiency Reporting System (JDRS) for joint Services aviation PQDRs, and DLA’s Automated Best Value System (ABVS). PPIRS-SR classifications are based on the Federal Supply Class (FSC) or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), are calculated monthly based upon 3 years of data, and are comprised of a Delivery Score and a Quality Color Ranking.

(a) Delivery Score The contractor’s delivery performance will be based on a weighted combination of the percentage of contract line items with on-time deliveries and the average days late for all deliveries.

(b) Quality Color Ranking Quality Color Ranking is based upon color/percentile groups. Contractor quality performance is based on a comparison among all contractors within an FSC. Contractor quality assessments are evaluated as follows:

Dark Blue is evaluated more favorably than Purple Purple is evaluated more favorably that Green Green is evaluated more favorably than Yellow Yellow is evaluated more favorably than Red

See DLAD provision 52.215-9003, Use of Past Performance Information Retrieval System- Statistical Reporting for additional information. For further details concerning PPIRS-SR classification calculations and contractor data challenge procedures, see user guides under References at http://www.ppirs.gov/.

8.2. PART 2: FINANCIAL

8.2.1. The goal of the proposal submissions relating to Financial is to demonstrate that the initial and ongoing expenditure and capital investment by the offeror is sufficient to meet the contract performance requirements. The proposal shall estimate the total dollars needed to expend/invest in preparation for performance. At a minimum the proposal shall identify the total dollars under the following categories:

· Inventory

· Real Property

· Equipment

· Personnel/Labor

· Transportation/Distribution

· Information Technology

8.2.2. The offeror shall also describe in detail its current financial position and means to meet the financial obligation identified above. The offeror shall identify pertinent factors (positive and negative) such as sales, worth, number of employees, financial history, assets, liabilities, bank affiliations, and financing. The Offeror shall also provide a copy of the most recent financial statements.

9. VOLUME III

9.1. PART 1 – SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (Does not apply to small businesses)

9.1.1. Large business offerors shall provide a Subcontracting Plan in compliance with FAR 19.704. Content and format shall be in accordance with FAR 52.219-9. Your Subcontracting Plan must address the requirements set forth in Section C. A Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted along with pricing.

9.1.2. The Subcontracting Plan of the successful offeror will be incorporated into and become part of any contract awarded. Award of a contract to an offeror proposing to utilize a subcontractor does not constitute approval of that subcontractor under the Section I clause FAR 52.244-2, Subcontracts – Alternate 1.

9.2. PART 2 – SOCIOECONOMIC PROPOSAL

9.2.1. Provide information as stated in DLAD 52.215-9002 – Socioeconomic Proposal. The offeror may also propose participation by Historically Black Colleges and Minority Institutions.

9.3. PART 3 – ABILITYONE PROGRAM SUPPORT

9.3.1. The offeror may provide a proposal as required under DLAD 52.215-9004.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. General Basis for Award

1.1. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Government. In making the best value determination, the Government will make a comparative assessment of all offers in the competitive range.

1.2. Award shall be made at the final negotiated prices for NSNs that are determined fair and reasonable by the Government.

1.3. Proposals will be evaluated and a competitive range established. After discussions are concluded, a formal source selection will occur to make the final awardee determination.

1.4. COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION: Technical proposals that are so deficient as to require major modification will be eliminated with no further consideration. The competitive range will be established before discussions. If the KO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient evaluation can be conducted, the KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient evaluation among the most highly rated proposals.

1.5. The following conditions shall be met in order to be eligible for award:

· The offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards in FAR Subpart 9.1.

· The offeror’s proposal must comply with the requirements of law, regulation, and all conditions set forth in the solicitation.

· The offeror must propose on all of the solicitation’s NSNs in accordance with the All or None provision of the solicitation.

· The offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Failure to provide a realistic, reasonable and complete proposal may reflect a lack of understanding of the work requirements and may result in a determination that the offeror’s proposal is technically unacceptable. The Government does not assume a duty to search for clarification data to cure problems or inconsistencies with an offeror’s proposal.

· The offeror must supply items that conform to 100% of all technical and quality requirements.

· Delivery for Customer Direct Orders must at least comply with TDD standards.

· FOB – The offeror must accept FOB destination for all non-FMS shipments and FOB origin for all FMS shipments.

· For large businesses, a subcontracting plan must be found acceptable. Subcontracting plans are assessed against the requirements of FAR 19.702 and DFARS 219.7.

1.6. Ratings will be assigned to all technical proposals submitted. Any discussions, clarifications, or negotiations that are held will be at discretion of the Government. Initial responses will be reviewed to determine compliance with the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Proposals so deficient that, in essence, no meaningful proposal has been submitted or proposals requiring major revisions to become acceptable will be rejected and eliminated from further consideration under this acquisition.

2. Evaluation Factors

The Government will base the determination of best value on a comparative assessment of the offeror’s prices, business management plan, and other evaluation factors as identified in this solicitation. The determination of best value considers the relative importance of the evaluation factors.

Factors C through G are ranked in descending order of importance and will be considered in the evaluation of proposals received under this solicitation. Factors A and B are approximately equal. Factors A and B when combined are significantly more important than factors C through G. As the non-price evaluation factors (including factor B) become more equal, the evaluated price becomes more important. Factors F through G when combined are significantly less important than factors C through D when combined. Factor B’s sub-factors are ranked as follows in descending order of importance: Process, Quality Assurance, Implementation and Ramp-Up, and Information Technology. Factor C’s sub-factors are equal in importance.

A. Price B. Business Management

C. Past Performance

D. Delivery E. Socioeconomic F. Surge & Sustainment G. AbilityOne

3. PRICE:

A best value analysis will be performed on the pricing proposals received. An initial analysis will be made on the initial offers received. A final proposal analysis will be made after final proposals are received from those companies that still remain in the competitive range.

3.1. Price will be evaluated as follows:

A. For DLA Managed NSNs:

Step 1:

Calculate a weighted unit price per NSN as follows:

CDUP (CLIN 0001 + CLIN 0002) X 90% +

SUP (CLIN 0003) X 5% +

FMS (CLIN 0001 + CLIN 0004) X 5%

Weighted Unit Price per NSN* *Notes regarding surplus material:

1. If a contractor submits an offer for approved Government surplus material and the surplus quantity exceeds the total five year estimated quantity for the item, the surplus pricing will be used for CLINs 0001 and 0003 in the calculation above.

2. If a contractor submits an offer for approved Government surplus material and the surplus quantity is less than the total five year estimated quantity for the item, if the surplus material is approved, CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0003 evaluated prices will be weighted as follows:

a. Divide the available surplus quantity by the estimated total five year quantity to arrive at a weighting factor for surplus

b. One minus the surplus weighting factor will be the weighting factor for new material

c. Calculate evaluated unit prices for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0003 using the following formula: (Surplus unit price * surplus weighting factor) + (New unit price * new material weighting factor)

3. If surplus material pricing is submitted for the DLR NSNs it will apply only to CLIN 0003 as no pricing will be submitted for CLIN 0001 for DLR NSNs.

Step 2:

Multiply the Weighted Unit Price per NSN times the estimated annual quantity for that NSN to arrive at the Year 1 Evaluated Price per NSN

Step 3:

Total the Year 1 Evaluated price for all common DLA managed NSNs X 5 Years to determine the Total Evaluated Price for Common DLA Managed NSNs

B. For DLR items:

Step 1:

Calculate the average weighted unit price (AWUP) per DLR NSN per the formula found in provision DLAD 52.216-9013. The formula for AWUP is as follows: AWUP = (Range 1 Unit Price (U/P) * .05) + (Range 2 U/P * .65) + (Range 3 U/P * .25) + (Range 4 U/P * .05).

Step 2

Multiple the AWUP per NSN times the estimated annual quantity for that NSN to arrive at the Year 1 Evaluated Price per Common DLR NSN

Step 3:

Total the Year 1 Evaluated price for all common DLR NSNs and multiply by 5 Years to determine the Total Evaluated Price for Common DLR NSNs

C. Calculate the Total Evaluated Price per Offer by adding the Total Evaluated Price for Common DLA Managed NSNs to the Total Evaluated Price for Common NSNs and add the Transition costs from CLIN 0006 and any other price related evaluation factors and/or additional costs (i.e. FAT charges).

3.2. The Government will also evaluate the reasonableness of offered prices. All proposals will be evaluated to determine that the offered prices reflect a technical understanding of the requirements and those considered unrealistic may be rejected. Award will only be made for NSNs for which the total unit price can be determined fair and reasonable by the Government.

4. BUSINESS MANAGEMENT:

4.1. Evaluation of the Business Management Plan (BMP) will be a subjective assessment based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Except for specified minimum requirements, the evaluation will not be based on absolute standards of what is considered acceptable. The Government is seeking to determine if the offeror demonstrates a thorough understanding of the scope and complexity of the work and the ability to successfully perform that work. Offerors retained in the competitive range will be given an opportunity to address deficiencies in their proposal. The offeror’s response, or lack thereof, will be taken into consideration in the final evaluation. A rating of "Unacceptable" for any sub-factor listed for the BMP will render the entire technical proposal unacceptable. The evaluation of each BMP sub-factor will consider completeness, clarity, and degree of compliance with the solicitation, and the risk that the approach will be successful/unsuccessful as proposed. The BMP of the successful offeror will be incorporated into and become part of, any contract awarded. Should any of the successful offeror’s terms and conditions found in its BMP and/or other terms in the awardee’s proposal conflict with the terms and conditions of the RFP and/or the contract, the Government’s terms take precedence.

5. PAST PERFORMANCE:

5.1. The Past Performance Factor will be evaluated to determine 1) the Relevance of the offeror’s past performance and 2) the offeror’s Past Performance Risk.

5.2. The Past Performance Relevance will be evaluated through the quality of the offeror’s past performance (and the past performance of proposed critical team members or subcontractors) on contracts and subcontracts currently ongoing or completed within the last three years that are either directly related or similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to that which is detailed in the solicitation. Particular evaluation relevance will be placed on the contracts the offeror submits in response to the solicitation’s request for relevant contract experience. More recent and relevant performance may have a greater impact on the evaluation/assessment than less recent or less relevant effort.

Further, the evaluation will examine the full breadth of the work record(s) of the offeror and any critical subcontractor(s). Each offer will be evaluated on its past performance on contracts and subcontracts currently ongoing or completed that are either directly related or similar in scope, magnitude, or complexity to the requirements in this solicitation. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to size and complexity of the procurement under consideration. The Government may obtain and use past performance information from sources other than those identified by the offeror. The Government will determine which customers to survey and will forward questionnaires and receive the responses. Adverse past performance that an offeror did not previously have an opportunity to comment will be handled in accordance with FAR 15.306(b) or through discussions.

5.3. Past Performance Risk will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s overall performance of all past Government contracts completed. Past Performance Risk assessment may include but is not limited to, the offeror’s record of conforming to specifications, to the standards of good workmanship, adherence to contract schedules, commitment to customer satisfaction, and cooperative behavior. The Government will use the past performance evaluation factors marked below:

( X ) Socioeconomic Support ( X ) Past Performance Information Retrieval System – Statistical Reporting (PPIRS-SR) ( X ) AbilityOne

The Government may solicit information from an offeror’s customers and business associates; federal, state, and local government agencies; and from other persons and organizations as deemed necessary. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to query and to contact references other than those provided by the offeror.

The Government will also use Past Performance Information Retrieval System – Statistical Reporting (PPIRS-SR) to assess the offeror’s Past Performance Risk. The PPIRs rating the offeror will receive to aid in the assistance of Past Performance Risk will be formulated as described below:

Evaluation of PPIRS-SR delivery assessments per FSC will be based upon a numerical scale ranging from 0 (low) to 100 (high). If no delivery records are found in PPIRS-SR, no delivery score will be assigned to the offeror for that specific FSC. Quality performance will be assessed based upon relative ranking among all offerors within a given FSC. Offerors with no quality records will not be assigned a quality color.

As noted in section L since this action covers multiple FSCs, a single PPIRS evaluation score will be assigned to each offeror. The rating will combine both the numerical FSC ratings with the relative quality ratings. Any situation where an offeror does not have a rating in a specific FSC will not be held against the offeror and the offeror’s rating will be based on the rankings it does have in the FSCs covered by the NSNs in the solicitation.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available in the PPIRS-SR, the offeror will be evaluated as “Neutral” on its PPIRS-SR evaluation score.

For further details concerning PPIRS-SR classification calculations and contractor data challenge procedures, see user guides under References at http://www.ppirs.gov/.

Socioeconomic Support and AbilityOne Support:

Performance will be considered on prior contracts for:

( X ) Subcontracting with small, veteran-owned small, service-disabled veteran-owned small, HUBZone small, and women-owned small business concerns; and historically black colleges and universities, and minority institutions, including compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8 - Utilization of Small Business Concerns, FAR 52.219-9 - Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and DFARS 252.219-7003 - Small, and Women-Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts) ( X ) AbilityOne entity support

5.4. Financial – An assessment will be made of the financial position of the offeror taking into consideration the information requested in section L of the solicitation. Financial past performance will also be reviewed to consider a record of prompt payments to suppliers on previous contracts. In addition, an assessment will be made of the offeror’s estimates of the capital necessary to expend/invest in preparation for contract performance. A higher ranking will be given to offers that demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the requirements and those considered unrealistically low in terms of investment necessary to satisfy contract requirements may be rejected.

6. DELIVERY:

6.1. Non-FMS customer direct delivery is approximately equal to DLA/DLR stock delivery. Non-FMS customer direct delivery and DLA/DLR stock delivery are significantly more important than FMS customer direct delivery.

6.2. Customer Direct: Offerors must comply with, or improve, the delivery requirements, as specified in the Time Definite Delivery (TDD) charts found in Section F of this document or your proposal will not be considered for award. Offers that improve upon the TDD standards will be ranked more favorably.

6.3. DLA/DLR Stock Delivery: Offerors will propose a delivery time for DLA/DLR direct (Stock) orders in the applicable column on the Section B Spreadsheet tabs entitled “Pricing - DLA” and “Pricing – DLR”. Your proposed delivery for stock delivery orders will be compared to the Government desired delivery for each NSN. The difference for each NSN will then be averaged for the entire grouping. This averaged days difference will be used for the source selection analysis. For the offeror who is determined to be the overall best value to the Government, the final negotiated proposed delivery for each NSN awarded will become the Government required delivery at time of award for DLA/DLR direct delivery orders.

7. SOCIOECONOMIC:

7.1. In addition to the information requested under provision DLAD 52.215-9002, the extent of the proposed participation of historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions will be considered.

7.2. For large businesses, the offeror’s proposed goals for the socioeconomic sub-categories of veteran-owned, service-disabled veteran-owned, HUBZone, SDB, 8(a), and woman-owned small business concerns will be evaluated. Subcontracting plans with higher realistic goals will be more favorably rated. Small businesses who propose are not required to submit a subcontracting plan and for evaluation purposes will receive the highest rating.

8. SURGE & SUSTAINMENT:

8.1. See provision DLAD 52.217-9008 Surge and Sustainment (S&S) Evaluation.

9. ABILITYONE:

9.1. The information requested under provision DLAD 52.215-9004 will be evaluated in accordance with provision DLAD 52.215-9005.