SPRBL1-17-R-0005-0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code Page Of

2. Amendment/Modification No.

3. Effective Date

4. Requisition/Purchase Req No.

5. Project No. (If applicable)

6. Issued By Code 7. Administered By (If other than Item 6) Code

8. Name And Address Of Contractor (No., Street, City, County, State and Zip Code)

9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.

9B. Dated (See Item 11)

10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

10B. Dated (See Item 13) Code Facility Code

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 amendments: (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. Accounting And Appropriation Data (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

It Modifies The Contract/Order No. As Described In Item 14.

A. This Change Order is Issued Pursuant To: The Changes Set Forth In Item 14 Are Made In

The Contract/Order No. In Item 10A.

B. The Above Numbered Contract/Order Is Modified To Reflect The Administrative Changes (such as changes in paying office, appropriation 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 15C. Date Signed 16B. United States Of America 16C. Date Signed

By (Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

30-105-02 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE SCHEDULE

X

Firm Fixed Price

0001 2016NOV03

SPRBL1

DLA LAND AT ABERDEEN

6001 COMBAT DRIVE ROOM C1-301

APG, MD 21005-1846

JUSTIN D. RUTH

EMAIL: JUSTIN.RUTH@DLA.MIL

SPRBL1-17-R-0005

2016OCT27

X

X 2016DEC06

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 9

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued Page of

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Buyer Name: JUSTIN D. RUTH

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: DLA-ZLAB/(443)861-4527

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Type of Contract 2: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of this Amendment, 0001 to Request for Proposal (RFP) SPRBL1-17-R-0005, is revise the following:

1. Extend the date which proposals are due from November 29, 2016 to December 6, 2016.

2. Revise Section J, Attachment 0003, Performance Work Statement (PWS), to correct a typographical error.

3. Revise Section M, to correct a typographical error in paragraph M.2.3.2, which provides the wrong date for the revelant DoD Source

Selection Procedures. The applicable DoD Source Selection Procedures are dated April 1, 2016.

4. Revise Section M, to correct a typographical error in paragraph M.5 "Price/Cost." This paragraph is being revised from:

"Only one award will be made as a result of this solicitation to the offeror with the lowerst total evaluated price"

To:

"Only one award will be made as a result of this solicitaiton to the offeror that provides the best overall value to the Government, as detailed herein."

5. Revise Section J to add Attachment 0006, Wage Determination.

6. Revise the Fill-in Clause FAR 52.247-67

All other terms and conditions, not specifically detailed herein, remain as stated in the Request for Proposal.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0002 ***

2 9

SPRBL1-17-R-0005 0001

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

Status Regulatory Cite Title Date Status Regulatory Cite Title Date _______ _______________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________ _______ _______________ ______________________________________________________________________ ____________

I-1 CHANGED 52.247-67 SUBMISSION OF TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENTS FOR AUDIT FEB/2006

(a) The Contractor shall submit to the address identified below, for prepayment audit, transportation documents on which the United

States will assume freight charges that were paid

(1) By the Contractor under a cost-reimbursement contract; and

(2) By a first-tier subcontractor under a cost-reimbursement subcontract thereunder.

(b) Cost-reimbursement Contractors shall only submit for audit those bills of lading with freight shipment charges exceeding $100.

Bills under $100 shall be retained on-site by the Contractor and made available for on-site audits. This exception only applies to freight shipment bills and is not intended to apply to bills and invoices for any other transportation services.

(c) Contractors shall submit the above referenced transportation documents to

Attn: Sylvia Grimsley, Contract Specialist

Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground

6001 Combat Drive, BLDG 6001, 2nd Floor

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-1846

(End of Clause)

3 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

List of Number List of Number

Addenda Title Date of Pages Transmitted By Addenda Title Date of Pages Transmitted By________________ ____________________________________________________________ _______________ ____________ _______________________________ ____________________________________________________________ _______________ ____________ _______________

Attachment 0003 PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT WITH CDRLS 03-NOV-2016 015 DATA

Attachment 0006 WAGE DETERMINATION 05-JAN-2016 010 DATA

4 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. 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 the SSA giving appropriate consideration to the four evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, Delivery

Schedule, and Price. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and award(s) will be made based on an assessment of the results of the evaluation. In making this assessment, the SSA will give due consideration to all of the Factors and Sub-Factors and their relative order of importance. All non-cost evaluation Factors, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price. The

Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or to other than the Offeror with the highest technical rating if the SSA determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Sub-Factor level are ineligible for award. Evaluation factors and sub-factors for tradeoff are listed below in descending order of importance.

1. Technical

a. Technical Evaluation Approach

i. Adequacy of Response

ii. Feasibility of Approach

iii. Technical Performance

iv. Management

b. Initial Risk Assessment

2. Past Performance

3. Delivery Schedule

4. Price/Cost

M.2. Technical: __________

M.2.1. Technical Evaluation Approach To include evaluation of production and repair CLINs

M.2.1.1. Adequacy of Response: The extent to which the technical requirements have been considered, defined and satisfied and the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the technical features. In evaluating the Supplies Terms and Conditions factor, the

Government will evaluate how well the proposal meets the Governments requirements of the solicitation; specifically, the Governments requirements in Section B, quality assurance requirements in Section E, and all requirements identified in the SOW and PWS in Section J this solicitation.

M.2.1.2. Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offerors methods and approach to meeting the solicitation requirements provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful completion within the required schedule.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is feasible and the end results are achievable.

The evaluation shall consider the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon untried and unproven techniques, which may require excessive development. In the event that enhancements are proposed, the enhancements will be evaluated to determine whether the approach taken is feasible and will result in an end product that fully meets or exceeds the RFP requirements.

M.2.1.3. Technical Performance: The Offeror shall clearly indicate that they intend to fully meet all minimum technical requirements set forth in the applicable Statement of Work (SOW) and Performance Specification contained in the SOW.

M.2.1.3.1. Production Plan: The Offerors plan for production shall utilize accepted industrial engineering techniques and practices and shall include the following at a minimum:

M.2.1.3.1.1. Process flow charts depicting, in sequence, all fabrication, assembly, inspection/test, transportation and storage operations, and other steps, required in the manufacture and repair of the equipment. The charts should differentiate between in-house and outside operations and estimate the time required to perform each operation.

M.2.1.3.1.1.1. A major event milestone chart depicting all events from award of the contract until completion, which is deemed by the Offeror as significant to the successful accomplishment of the terms of the contract.

M.2.1.3.1.1.2. A functional personnel chart identifying the personnel required in the performance of the contract until completion. The chart shall differentiate between administrative, engineering and production/repair personnel. Regarding production/repair personnel, the chart shall further differentiate between each different production/repair work effort (i.e., machinist, assembler, technician, inspector). The chart shall also be accompanied by a brief description of each production/repair work effort (i.e., proposed production processes, the integration of subcontractor activity, the availability and adequacy of raw materials, production facilities, and equipment).

M.2.1.3.1.1.3. The offeror must identify critical non-standard/sole source parts, complex subassemblies, and materials with long lead times and show firm commitment from their sources to allow for timely delivery to meet the required delivery schedule. The

Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offerors manufacturing/repair capabilities and how it will lower overall program risk and cost to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Initiatives to minimize quality problems and to reduce the cost will also be evaluated.

M.2.1.3.2. Understanding of the Improved Data Modem: The proposal will be evaluated to determine if there is a clear understanding of the design, operational requirements, technology, reliability requirements, manufacturing requirements and repair capability, defined in

5 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

the appropriate sections of the SOW and PWS. Any risks or problem areas associated with this requirement shall be discussed in detail.

The Offeror shall outline any major problems anticipated in meeting the requirement and shall describe how these problems will be resolved.

M.2.1.3.2.1. Operational Failure: The Offeror shall describe in detail, their ability to detect, isolate, analyze, and resolve any equipment failures of the IDM-304B.

M.2.1.3.2.2. Diminishing Sources/Part Obsolescence: The Offeror shall describe diminishing sources/part obsolescence capability related to identifying, replacing and modernizing components and parts. The Offeror shall identify potential parts obsolescence problems/technology obsolescence and/or diminishing sources problems related to current design and present proposed courses of action for the duration of the contract. The Offeror will propose solutions to these problems.

M.2.1.4. Management: The Offeror shall provide a detailed plan of how they will meet the delivery schedule in Section B of this solicitation. The Offeror shall describe and propose solutions to any scheduling problems and critical items needed to successfully complete the program on schedule. The Offeror shall provide milestones such as: First Article Testing dates, fabrication dates, placement of material orders, receipt of materials, fabrication and acceptance testing of Transmitter components, start and completion of production engineering, and initial hardware delivery schedule.

M.2.1.4.1. The offeror shall provide contingency plans to handle material changes due to parts obsolescence or specification changes due to urgent requirements and how these changes will be integrated into the production/repair line without affecting the delivery schedule.

M.2.1.4.2. Testing Capabilities: The offeror shall demonstrate through their proposal submission that they have an understanding of the scope and the resources required for the testing requirements as detailed within the specification.

M.2.1.4.2.1. First Article Testing (FAT): The offeror shall demonstrate through their proposal submission that they have the capabilities to perform the first article testing requirements as detailed within the specification and SOW.

M.2.2. Initial Risk Assessment: The Government will assess the completeness of the details provided and adequacy of the proposed initial risk assessment that includes technical, schedule, cost risks, the process for incorporating potential risk-driven impacts into the proposal price and schedule, and the risk assessment (identification and analysis) methodology.

M.2.3. Technical Evaluation

M.2.3.1. A color and an adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor and sub-factor to depict the degree to which each offerors proposal exceeds, meets, or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements of each of the technical factors and sub-factors through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies of each proposal. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offerors technical solution for meeting the Governments requirement. See below for the ratings:

Color Rating Description

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable 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 unawardable.

M.2.3.2. Definitions used in evaluating factor and sub-factor responses to determine the overall factor or sub-factor rating as defined in FAR 15.001 and Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy memorandum dated April 1, 2016, DoD Source Selection Procedures.

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.

Significant Strength- An aspect of an Offerors proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds

6 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

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.

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

Weakness A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.2.3.3. Within the Technical Factor, each Sub-Factor will be rated separately using the color/adjectival ratings. Each Sub-Factor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Each Sub-

Factor will be assigned a color/adjectival rating based upon these collective findings. The compilation of these Sub-Factor color/adjectival ratings will form the basis of the Factor rating. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any

Factor/Sub-Factor level are ineligible for award.

M.3. Past Performance - To Include evaluation for the Production and Repair portions of the effort.

M.3.1. The past performance evaluation will assess the offerors 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 contracts requirements. The contracting officer will assign a performance confidence rating based on an offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

M.3.2. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offerors past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offerors past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

M.3.2.1. Past Performance Relevancy

Relevancy will be defined as how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the solicited requirement. Relevancy includes contracts/orders of similar products. The contracting officer will assess whether prior efforts are relevant based on whether prior awards were, for example, in the federal supply class (FSC), and of similar complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting. The contracting officer will consider efforts completed within a period of the three (3) previous years.

M.3.2.1.1. All offerors should provide a list, as instructed in section L of this solicitation, of the most recently completed contracts/orders, either for commercial or government customers, performed within the past three years.

M.3.2.1.2. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact.

M.3.2.1.3. Proposals will receive one of the following ratings for Relevancy:

M.3.2.1.4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating/Definition

Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

M.3.2.2. Performance Confidence Assessment

Performance confidence will be defined as how well the contractor performed on past contracts. In evaluating performance confidence, the

Government will evaluate the offerors record of contract compliance in supplying products that meet the users needs. The contracting officer will review the following: product quality, delivery, and customer satisfaction.

M.3.2.2.1. Proposals being evaluated against performance confidence will receive one of the following ratings:

7 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Substantial Confidence: Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence: Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence: Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral): No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. Therefore, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

M.4. Proposed Delivery Schedule - Production Portion Only. Delivery schedule shall not be evaluated for the repair portion as the Turn

Around Time (TAT) has been directed by the Government in the PWS found in section J.

M.4.1. The Governments delivery schedule is listed in Section F. Contractors are to provide their own test schedule, or accept the

Governments proposed schedule.

M.4.2. It is the Governments intent to evaluate the proposed delivery to ensure timely delivery. Proposals being evaluated against the proposed delivery schedule will receive one of the following ratings:

Outstanding: (1) The offerors proposed delivery schedule is significantly better than the required delivery schedule AND (2) the time proposed for FAT is significantly better than the Government proposed timeline.

Good: (1) The offerors proposed delivery schedule is moderately better than the required delivery schedule AND (2) the time proposed for

FAT is moderately better than OR meets the Government proposed timeline

Acceptable: (1) The offerors proposed delivery schedule meets the Governments required delivery schedule AND (2) the time proposed for

FAT meets the Government proposed timeline

Marginal: (1) The offerors proposed delivery schedule does not meet the Governments required delivery schedule AND/OR (2) the time proposed for FAT does not meet the Government proposed timeline

Unacceptable: (1) The offeror did not provide a proposed delivery schedule.

M.5. Price/Cost

Prices offered must be unit prices which are clearly stated and which require no further interpretation by the Government in order to determine the actual offered price. Prices must not be stated as part of a pricing formula or as charges per lot. Unit prices offered must include costs of compliance with all solicitation requirements. Prices must be offered for each quantity increment and ordering year. Failure to submit proposed prices in accordance with these instructions may result in rejection of the offer.

The Government believes adequate price competition shall result from this solicitation, therefore, the need for the submission of certified cost or pricing data is not expected. However, the Government may require other than certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-3 to support a determination of a fair and reasonable price after initial proposals are received.

Offerors shall submit a pricing proposal for the item identified in Section B of the RFP, by inserting proposed prices for each contract line item (CLIN) on which the offeror is making a proposal. Pricing is required for all quantity ranges, across all five years, for the production CLINs. The quantity range pricing will be weighted, as demonstrated below. The cost for separately priced line items such as

First Article Testing etc. will be added to an offerors total evaluated production price to arrive at the total evaluated price. This total evaluated price will be the price evaluation factor (see below for an example of the calculation). Only one award will be made as a result of this solicitation to the offeror that provides the best overall value to the Government, as detailed herein.

Total Evaluated Price Example:

Quantity Range Year 1 Price Weighted Year 1 Price

1-10 (10%) $10,000 x 0.1 = $1,000

11-25 (30%) $9,000 x 0.3 = $2,700

26-50 (30%) $8,000 x 0.3 = $2,400

8 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

51-100 (20%) $7,000 x 0.2 = $1,400

101-150 (10%) $6,000 x 0.1 = $ 600 _______

$8,100

Total Weighted Year One Production CLIN Price: $8,100 x 100 (BEQ) = $810,000

The above calculation is conducted for each ordering year, using the same weighting formula. The total weighted production CLIN price for each year is added together to equal the total weighted production CLIN price. The total weighted production CLIN price is added to separately priced line items to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price.

The Government will perform a price analysis on the FFP prices proposed in Section B of the solicitation to determine price reasonableness in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.404-1(b). The Government will perform a cost realism analysis on the CPFF prices proposed in Section B of the solicitation to determine the most probable cost of performance in accordance with FAR

15.404-1(d). If deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer, a cost analysis may be performed per FAR 15.404-1(c).

Price Inconsistencies: A proposal is presumed to represent an Offerors best effort to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency,______________________ whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price, should be explained in the proposal. Any significant inconsistencies, if unexplained, raise a fundamental issue of the Offerors understanding of the nature and scope of work required and his/her financial ability to perform the contract, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

Unbalanced Pricing: The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

For evaluation purposes, the offerors pricing will be evaluated utilizing accepted price analysis methods. The pricing analysis will be performed on a comparative basis. An offerors total evaluated price will be considered. For the purposes of this evaluation factor, the total evaluated price shall be the sum of the total evaluated production price and all of the separately priced CLINs.

Cost Reimbursable Repairs

For evaluation purposes, the maximum allowable Repairs cost is limited to $6,000,000 for the (5) five term years of this IDIQ, with an estimated annual cost of $1.2M. The offeror shall reflect this cost in the Section B CLINs for repair services.

Accounting System

The Offeror shall maintain an accounting system deemed adequate for the accumulation of and allocation of cost under this cost-reimbursement portion of the contract. Failure to have an adequate accounting system, as determined by Defense Contract Audit Agency, may render the proposal unacceptable for purposes of evaluating the proposed accumulated costs under a prospective Government contract.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

9 9