SPRWA121R0009_Amd0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE Page 1

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

SPRWA1-21-R-0009-0002

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

4 AUG 2021

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

FD2060-20-00200

5. PROJECT NO (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE

DLA AVIATION, DLR PROCUREMENT OPERATIONS (AW)

235 BYRON ST STE 19A

ROBINS AFB GA 31098-1813

BUYER: Christine O. Tomlinson/SPRWA1 christine.tomlinson@us.af.mil Phone: (478) 926- 4970

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODESPRWA1

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

CODE

X

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

SPRWA121R0009

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

22-JUN-2021

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

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 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. 6-AUG-2021 3:30 PM

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) 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 date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO 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 1 copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

FMS REQUIREMENT

ROUTINE

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

BY ________________________________________________________

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY ____________________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

FACILITY CODE

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

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

PRESCRIBED BY GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

X

X X

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.

SPRWA1-21-R-0009-0002

Continuation of block 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

The RFP is amended as follows:

a. Required delivery quantities of Production CLINS is hereby changed:

CLIN NSN FROM: TO:

0003 1560-00-670-2059 10 ea./month 3 ea./month 0004 1560-00-670-2060 10 ea./month 3 ea./month 0005 1560-00-670-2062 10 ea./month 3 ea./month 0006 1560-00-442-4755 10 ea./month 3 ea./month 0007 1560-00-661-1561 10 ea./month 3 ea./month 0008 1560-00-442-4750 10 ea./month 3 ea./month

b. Required delivery ARO for production CLINs is hereby changed:

FROM: 180 DAYS ARO

TO: 8 MONTHS ARO

c. As a result of this change, the Pricing Matrix attachment is revised. Pricing Matrix is hereby removed in its entirety, and Pricing Matrixv. 2 is hereby incorporated into Section J, Attachments.

d. Section M, E. Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal Factor, 1. Price Factor is hereby changed to include the language as seen (in italics) below:

E. Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal Factor

1. Price Factor. The offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs a., and b., below. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with the instructions on the Pricing Matrix Attachment in Section J of the RFP and paragraph c.

below. Each offeror must propose to all production line items. Offerors required to complete the First Article requirement must propose to each line item applicable to the First Article in addition to the production line items.

The contractor must not provide a “No Bid” for any item on the Pricing Matrix to be priced. If a “No Bid” is provided during the initial Best Value Award evaluation, the offer may be deemed unacceptable for failure to follow the solicitation instructions and not considered for award. Allowing “No Bid” actions during the initial Best Value determination phase could serve to create an imbalance between contractors’ TEPs due to the varying number of NSNs proposed upon. This overall TEP is used as when determining overall Best Value.

Offerors should search out alternative options for pricing NSNs in lieu of providing a “No Bid”.

a. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

b. Balance: A Total Evaluated Price will be calculated as outlined on the Pricing Matrix Attachment in Section J of the RFP. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for individual items (unit price multiplied by the corresponding evaluation quantity) identified as applicable to the basic period. The TEP shall include all costs associated with providing the final item to the Government. The total sell price of each item will include the offeror’s service costs and any other costs associated with UID as appropriate. No additional cost for items will be paid by the Government during contract performance.

Amendment/Modification SPRWA1-21-R-0009-0002

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items (Basic Contract Ordering Period) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. All unit prices should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The sum of the evaluated prices of all CLINs/SubCLINs will represent the total evaluated price for the Basic five year contract period.

e. As a result of this amendment, the date for proposal submission is hereby extended to 6 August, 2021.

SECTION M PROVISION

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY AND SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION ACCEPTABILITY

(IF APPLICABLE) WITH PAST PERFORMANCE AND PRICE TRADEOFF)

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

IAW FAR 13.106-2(b), FAR 14.201-5(c), FAR 15.204-5(c):

For the purposes of award, offers will be evaluated on the following factors, listed in descending order of importance:

Evaluation Factors* Order of Importance* Past Performance 1 Cost/Price 2 Small Business Participation Acceptable/Unacceptable**

*Source Selection Methodology described in paragraph A.

** Small Business Participation is not ranked in relative importance. Your Proposal must be acceptable for this factor in order to be considered for the Best Value Trade-Off between Past performance and Cost/Price.

A. Source Selection Methodology This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300, as supplemented in PGI 215.300-90 to make a trade-off assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award up to 3 contracts as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror(s) who give(s) the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. A decision on small business participation acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors with acceptable Small Business Participation, tradeoffs will be made between past/present performance and cost/price, with past/present performance being considered significantly more important than cost/price. This may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will utilize the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors described in the solicitation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. The Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposals conform to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the

Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. More recent and more relevant performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

3. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description 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.

4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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 factor 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.

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

5. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror, when subcontracting possibilities existed, whether the offeror awarded subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 (Subcontracting Plan) only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, the Government will evaluate whether or not it was the offeror’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

D. Volume IV, Small Business Participation

1. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation proposal addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided;

and,

iii) The associated objectives expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why an objective is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

The associated goals in paragraph iii above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal will be evaluated against the FY2021 DoD Small Business Subcontracting objectives:

Business Size Sub Small Business 32.25% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5% Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

3%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

5%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

3%

2. Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participation factor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

E. Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal Factor

1. Price Factor. The offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs a., and b., below. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with the instructions on the Pricing Matrix Attachment in Section J of the RFP and paragraph c. below. Each offeror must propose to all production line items. Offerors required to complete the First Article requirement must propose to each line item applicable to the First Article in addition to the production line items.

The contractor must not provide a “No Bid” for any item on the Pricing Matrix to be priced. If a “No Bid” is provided during the initial Best Value Award evaluation, the offer may be deemed unacceptable for failure to follow the solicitation instructions and not considered for award. Allowing “No Bid” actions during the initial Best Value determination phase could serve to create an imbalance between contractors’ TEPs due to the varying number of NSNs proposed upon. This overall TEP is used as when determining overall Best Value. Offerors should search out alternative options for pricing NSNs in lieu of providing a “No Bid”.

a. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

b. Balance: A Total Evaluated Price will be calculated as outlined on the Pricing Matrix Attachment in Section J of the RFP. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for individual items (unit price multiplied by the corresponding evaluation quantity) identified as applicable to the basic period. The TEP shall include all costs associated with providing the final item to the Government. The total sell price of each item will include the offeror’s service costs and any other costs associated with UID as appropriate. No additional cost for items will be paid by the Government during contract performance.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items (Basic Contract Ordering Period) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. All unit prices should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The sum of the evaluated prices of all CLINs/SubCLINs will represent the total evaluated price for the Basic five year contract period.

Instructions

PRICING MATRIX INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES BELOW

1 The following worksheets are located in this Pricing Matrix Workbook:

a. First Article - this worksheet must be completed in its entirety for each contract line item (CLIN).

b. Production - this worksheet must be completed in its entirety for each contract line item (CLIN).

c. Delivery Schedule (Production) - this worksheet must be completed in its entirety for each contract line item (CLIN).

d. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) - this worksheet is for evaluation purposes only. The contents of this worksheet will be auto-calculated based upon the offeror's proposal.

2 Each worksheet has specific instructions on how to properly complete the contents. Please note, only the gold filled color cells require offeror's input.

3 The offeror will not insert and/or delete cells, columns, and/or rows contained within this workbook.

4 Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the instructions reflected in this Pricing Matrix Workbook may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable, and therefore not eligible for award.

5 The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) resulting from this Pricing Matrix workbook will be used for selection of the awardees to receive basic contracts. The TEP is the summation of the total evaluated price for each contract line item / ordering period. The unit prices in this Pricing Matrix workbook incorporated into the basic contract will be used to determine awardee order quantities in accordance with the contract ordering provisions.

First Article

SEE PRICING MATRIX INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES BELOW

Table 1 - First Article

CLIN NSN DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT PRICE / CLIN TEP / CLIN a REQUIRED DELIVERY PROPOSED DELIVERY

0001AA 1560-00-670-2059LG First Article (-2059LG) 2 675 Days After Receipt of Order Error 1 Error 2

0001AB 1560-00-670-2060LG First Article (-2060LG) 2 675 Days After Receipt of Order Error 1 Error 2

0001AC 1560-00-670-2062LG First Article (-2062LG) 2 675 Days After Receipt of Order Error 1 Error 2

0001AD 1560-00-442-4755LG First Article (-4755LG) 2 675 Days After Receipt of Order Error 1 Error 2

0001AE 1560-00-661-1561LG First Article (-1561LG) 2 675 Days After Receipt of Order Error 1 Error 2

0001AF 1560-00-442-4750LG First Article (-4750LG) 2 675 Days After Receipt of Order Error 1 Error 2

First Article Test Costs 12 $ 116,422.75 $ 1,397,073.00 In Accordance with Forms AFMC 260

0002AA ELIN (A003) Bladder Design Report 1 NSP NSP In Accordance with Forms AFMC 260

0002AB ELIN (A001 & A002) Bladder Cell Weight and Repair Information Reports 1 NSP NSP In Accordance with Forms AFMC 260

Pricing Matrix Instructions - First Article

1 The offeror must input a value within each gold filled color cell. If the offeror is required to bid First Article Production, the offeror must input the values in each "Unit Price" column as whole dollars. If the offeror is not required to bid First Article Production, the offeror must input the text "No FA Required".

2 The offeror will not insert and/or delete cells, columns, and/or rows within this worksheet.

3 The offeror will receive an error message if the following condition(s) exist:

Error 1: the offeror (1) did not enter the text “No FA Required” (if not required to bid First Articles); (2) did not enter a dollar vale greater than zero (if required to bid First Articles); or (3) left the gold filled color cell blank/empty.

Error 2: the offeror (1) did not enter the text “No FA Required” (if not required to bid First Articles); (2) did not enter proposed delivery schedule (if required to bid

. First Articles); or (3) left the gold filled color cell blank/empty.

Pricing Matrix Notes - First Article

a. For offerors required to submit First Articles, a $1,397,073 Government Testing Cost will be added. The Government testing cost will not be added to offerors who do not have to provide First Articles. The following are Qualified Sources and are not required to submit First Articles: (1) Meggitt Polymers & Composites (CAGE Code 56221); (2) American Fuel

Cell & Coated Fabrics (CAGE Code 05476); and (3) Floats & Fuel Cells, Inc. (CAGE 1MM01). All other sources who have been pre-qualified to submit a proposal will need to complete the pricing for the First Articles. Note: Offerors that claim First Article exemption should still price First Articles, as a requested waiver may not be granted.

b. The First Article Testing Cost is the cost associated with Government Testing of the First Articles.

c. The Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) are for First Article Requirements only. All costs associated with these CDRLs should be included in the First Article build costs.

Production

SEE PRICING MATRIX INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES BELOW

Pricing Matrix Instructions - Production

1 The offeror must input a numerical value, for each pricing period, in the "From" and "To" columns as well as input a dollar value in the corresponding "Unit Price" column for each gold filled color cell.

2 The offeror must input the values in each "From" and "To" columns as whole numbers and must input the values in each "Unit Price" column as whole dollars.

3 The offeror will not insert and/or delete cells, columns, and/or rows within this worksheet.

4 The offeror will receive an error message associated with each pricing period if the following condition(s) exist:

Error 3: The summation of the "QTY" column, which is based upon the values entered in the "From" and "To" columns, does not equal the required range quantity associated with each contract line item.

Pricing Matrix Notes - Production

a. CLIN 0003 required range quantity is as follows: Basic (1 - 70); Ordering Period I (1 - 70); Ordering Period II (1 - 40); Ordering Period III (1 - 40); and Ordering Period IV (1 - 40).

b. CLIN 0004 required range quantity is as follows: Basic (1 - 100); Ordering Period I (1 - 70); Ordering Period II (1 - 50); Ordering Period III (1 - 50); and Ordering Period IV (1 - 50).

c. CLIN 0005 required range quantity is as follows: Basic (1 - 50); Ordering Period I (1 - 50); Ordering Period II (1 - 30); Ordering Period III (1 - 30); and Ordering Period IV (1 - 30).

d. CLIN 0006 required range quantity is as follows: Basic (1 - 250); Ordering Period I (1 - 100); Ordering Period II (1 - 70); Ordering Period III (1 - 70); and Ordering Period IV (1 - 70).

e. CLIN 0007 required range quantity is as follows: Basic (1 - 170); Ordering Period I (1 - 70); Ordering Period II (1 - 40); Ordering Period III (1 - 40); and Ordering Period IV (1 - 40).

f. CLIN 0008 required range quantity is as follows: Basic (1 - 275); Ordering Period I (1 - 130); Ordering Period II (1 - 90); Ordering Period III (1 - 90); and Ordering Period IV (1 - 90).

g. The Pricing Period TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The total evaluated price for each pricing period represents the sum of the pricing periods' extended price multiplied by a calculated factor that represents the Government’s forecasted quantity associated with each ordering period in relation to the corresponding range quantity for each ordering period.

h. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The total evaluated price is the summation of the total evaluated price for each contract line item / ordering period.

i. The calculation for the TEP is not how pricing will be determined for Future Orders. For Future Orders, the unit price for the quantity to be purchased will be multiplied by the unit price stated for the range containing that quantity. For example, when the unit price for units 11 - 15 is $200 each, the total price regarding an order quantity of 13 units would be $2,600 (13 units mulitplied by $200). (Note: These numbers are for example purposes only, and have no relation to the cost associated with this effort.

Table 2 - Production

CLIN 0003 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP) h

CLIN NSN DESCRIPTION BASIC a ORDERING PERIOD I a ORDERING PERIOD II a ORDERING PERIOD III a ORDERING PERIOD IV a

0003 1560-00-670-2059LG Production (-2059LG) FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE

0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0

BASIC TEP g ORDERING PERIOD I TEP g ORDERING PERIOD II TEP g ORDERING PERIOD III TEP g ORDERING PERIOD IV TEP g

CLIN 0004 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP) h

CLIN NSN DESCRIPTION BASIC b ORDERING PERIOD I b ORDERING PERIOD II b ORDERING PERIOD III b ORDERING PERIOD IV b

0004 1560-00-670-2060LG Production (-2060LG) FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE

0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0

BASIC TEP g ORDERING PERIOD I TEP g ORDERING PERIOD II TEP g ORDERING PERIOD III TEP g ORDERING PERIOD IV TEP g

CLIN 0005 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP) h

CLIN NSN DESCRIPTION BASIC c ORDERING PERIOD I c ORDERING PERIOD II c ORDERING PERIOD III c ORDERING PERIOD IV c

0005 1560-00-670-2062LG Production (-2062LG) FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE

0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0

BASIC TEP g ORDERING PERIOD I TEP g ORDERING PERIOD II TEP g ORDERING PERIOD III TEP g ORDERING PERIOD IV TEP g

CLIN 0006 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP) h

CLIN NSN DESCRIPTION BASIC d ORDERING PERIOD I d ORDERING PERIOD II d ORDERING PERIOD III d ORDERING PERIOD IV e

0006 1560-00-442-4755LG Production (-4755LG) FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE

0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0

BASIC TEP g ORDERING PERIOD I TEP g ORDERING PERIOD II TEP g ORDERING PERIOD III TEP g ORDERING PERIOD IV TEP g

CLIN 0007 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP) h

CLIN NSN DESCRIPTION BASIC e ORDERING PERIOD I e ORDERING PERIOD II e ORDERING PERIOD III e ORDERING PERIOD IV e

0007 1560-00-661-1561LG Production (-1561LG) FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE

0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0

BASIC TEP g ORDERING PERIOD I TEP g ORDERING PERIOD II TEP g ORDERING PERIOD III TEP g ORDERING PERIOD IV TEP g

CLIN 0008 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP) h

CLIN NSN DESCRIPTION BASIC f ORDERING PERIOD I f ORDERING PERIOD II f ORDERING PERIOD III f ORDERING PERIOD IV f

0008 1560-00-442-4750LG Production (-4750LG) FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE FROM TO QTY UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE

0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0 0 $ - 0

BASIC TEP g ORDERING PERIOD I TEP g ORDERING PERIOD II TEP g ORDERING PERIOD III TEP g ORDERING PERIOD IV TEP g

Delivery Schedule (Production)

SEE PRICING MATRIX INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES BELOW

Table 3 - Delivery Schedule (Production)

CLIN NSN DESCRIPTION Required Delivery Proposed Delivery

Pricing Matrix Instructions - CLIN 0002 (First Article)

1 The offeror must input a value within each gold filled color cell.

3 The offeror will not insert and/or delete cells, columns, and/or rows within this worksheet.

4 The offeror will receive an error message if the following condition(s) exist:

Error 4: the offeror (1) did not enter a proposed delivery schedule and left the gold filled color cell blank/empty.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

SEE PRICING MATRIX INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES BELOW

CLIN NSN DESCRIPTION QTY EVALUATED CLIN PRICE b

0001AA 1560-00-670-2059 First Article 2 Error 5

0001AB 1560-00-670-2060 First Article 2 Error 5

0001AC 1560-00-670-2062 First Article 2 Error 5

0001AD 1560-00-442-4755 First Article 2 Error 5

0001AE 1560-00-661-1561 First Article 2 Error 5

0001AF 1560-00-442-4750 First Article 2 Error 5

First Article Test Costs 12 Error 5

0002AA ELIN (A003) Bladder Design Report 1 NSP

0002AB ELIN (A001 & A002) Bladder Cell Weight and Repair Information Reports 1 NSP

Subtotal Error 5

CLIN NSN DESCRIPTION EST QTY d EVALUATED CLIN PRICE c

0003 1560-00-670-2059 Production (-2059) 127 Error 5

50 0004 1560-00-670-2060 Production (-2060) 156 Error 5

25 0005 1560-00-670-2062 Production (-2062) 88 Error 5

175 0006 1560-00-442-4755 Production (-4755) 319 Error 5

85 0007 1560-00-661-1561 Production (-1561) 173 Error 5

200 0008 1560-00-442-4750 Production (-4750) 386 Error 5

Subtotal Error 5

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE a Error 5

Pricing Matrix Notes - Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

a. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be used for evaluation purposes only. The sum of the evaluated prices for each contract line item (CLIN) represents the TEP. The calculation of the evaluated CLIN prices has been explained on each of the applicable worksheets in this workbook.

b. The dollars amounts presented in this column stem from the First Article worksheet.

c. The dollar amounts presented in this column stem from the Production worksheet.

d. These estimated quantities are derived from the cumulative estimated quantities for each period regarding each contract line item.

e. The offeror will receive an error message, specifically Error 5, if the offeror has not entered the required values within this workbook necessary to auto-populate the "Evaluated CLIN Price".

Raw Data

First Article Test Costs $ 116,422.75

NSN: 1560-00-670-2059LG

From To BEQ % to Total

Basic 1 70 32 0.5

OP I 1 70 35 0.5

OP II 1 40 20 0.5

OP III 1 40 20 0.5

OP IV 1 40 20 0.5

NSN: 1560-00-670-2060LG

From To BEQ % to Total

Basic 1 100 46 0.5

OP I 1 70 35 0.5

OP II 1 50 25 0.5

OP III 1 50 25 0.5

OP IV 1 50 25 0.5

NSN: 1560-00-670-2062LG

From To BEQ % to Total

Basic 1 50 18 0.4

OP I 1 50 25 0.5

OP II 1 30 15 0.5

OP III 1 30 15 0.5

OP IV 1 30 15 0.5

NSN: 1560-00-442-4755LG

From To BEQ % to Total

Basic 1 250 164 0.7

OP I 1 100 50 0.5

OP II 1 70 35 0.5

OP III 1 70 35 0.5

OP IV 1 70 35 0.5

NSN: 1560-00-661-1561LG

From To BEQ % to Total

Basic 1 170 78 0.5

OP I 1 70 35 0.5

OP II 1 40 20 0.5

OP III 1 40 20 0.5

OP IV 1 40 20 0.5

NSN: 1560-00-442-4750LG

From To BEQ % to Total

Basic 1 275 186 0.7

OP I 1 130 65 0.5

OP II 1 90 45 0.5

OP III 1 90 45 0.5

OP IV 1 90 45 0.5