W15QKN17R0022-0002.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

0002 2016DEC22

W15QKN

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - NJ

PICATINNY ARSENAL, NJ 07806-5000

DONALD HOWARD GURRY

EMAIL: DONALD.H.GURRY.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W15QKN-17-R-0022

2016DEC01

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 13

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: DONALD HOWARD GURRY

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: ACC-NJ-MA/(973)724-4267

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

1. The reason for this amendment to Solicitation W15QKN-17-R-0022 is to revise the language in Section M.2.1.b - Projectile Terminal

Ballistic Performance.

2. All other terms and conditions of this solicitation remain in full force and effect.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0003 ***

2 13

W15QKN-17-R-0022 0002

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to make one (1) award as a result of the RFP. The Government will select for award the proposal that is most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government, with the Source Selection Authority (SSA) giving the appropriate consideration to the six (6) evaluation Factors: Bid Sample Test, Technical, Price, Technical Data Rights, Past Performance, and Small

Business Participation. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and award will be made based on an integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation. In making this assessment, the SSA will give due consideration to all of the

Factors and Subfactors and their relative order of importance. For evaluation purposes, the Bid Sample Test is more important than the

Technical Factor, the Technical Factor is more important than the Price Factor, the Price Factor is more important than the Technical

Data Rights Factor, the Technical Data Rights Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor, and the Past Performance

Factor is more important than the Small Business Participation Factor. When all evaluation Factors other than Price are combined, they are significantly more important than Price. Price will be evaluated, but will not be rated with a color or adjectival rating. 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/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions (except for clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

Minimum Acceptability: If an Offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may not be considered for contract award. All Offerors are urged to ensure that their initial proposals are submitted with the most favorable terms in order to reflect their best possible potential.

FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and the SSA will assess the results of the following Factors, listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Bid Sample Test

Factor 2: Technical

Factor 3: Price

Factor 4: Technical Data Rights

Factor 5: Past Performance

Factor 6: Small Business Participation

The Bid Sample Test Factor has four Subfactors which are listed below:

Subfactor 1: Terminal Ballistic Performance

Subfactor 2: Reliability

Subfactor 3: Characteristics of Cartridge

Subfactor 4: Exterior Ballistic Performance

The Terminal Ballistic Performance Subfactor is more important than the Reliability Subfactor, the Characteristics of Cartridge

Subfactor, and the Exterior Ballistic Performance Subfactor. Subfactors 2, 3 and 4 are equally important. If a rating of

Red/Unacceptable is given in any of the Bid Sample Test Subfactors, then the overall adjectival rating of the Bid Sample Test Factor will be Red/Unacceptable.

The Technical Factor has four Subfactors which are listed below:

Subfactor 1: Production

Subfactor 2: Management

Subfactor 3: Quality

Subfactor 4: Technical Approach

The Production Subfactor, Management Subfactor, Quality Subfactor and Technical Approach Subfactor are equally important. If a rating of Red/Unacceptable is given in any of the Technical Subfactors, then the overall adjectival rating of the Technical Factor will be

Red/Unacceptable.

The Price Factor does not have any Subfactors.

The Technical Data Rights Factor does not have any Subfactors.

3 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

The Past Performance Factor does not have any Subfactors.

The Small Business Participation Factor does not have any Subfactors.

The evaluators will use the following terms in support of the rating of all non-cost/price evaluation Factors except Past Performance.

The Adverse Past Performance term is to be used under the Past Performance Factor only:

a. 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.

b. Significant Weakness - A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

c. Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

d. 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.

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

f. Adverse Past Performance Past Performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as PPIRS or FAPIIS.

M. EVALUATION APPROACH______________________

M.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION APPROACH

M.1.1 Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received pursuant to the RFP. A team of Government personnel will evaluate each proposal relative to the Factors and Subfactors. The result will be a determination of the overall merits of each proposal in terms of its potential to best satisfy the needs of the Government. In making the integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation of all Factors, the Government will give due consideration to the relative order of importance of such Factors and their merit ratings in relationship to price. The Government weighs any increase in merit rating against any additional cost to determine if the parity of the relationship warrants the paying of additional cost for additional merit.

M.2 FACTOR 1: BID SAMPLE TEST

Evaluation of the bid sample test will be based on data generated by the Government by testing bid samples in accordance with the Bid

Sample Test Plan (Attachment 0007).

The Bid Sample Test Factor and Subfactors will receive a color/adjectival rating in accordance with the chart below.

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 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.

Within the Bid Sample Test Factor, each Subfactor will be rated separately using the color code/adjectival ratings. The components of each Subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks (See below). Each Subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings. The compilation of these Subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the overall Factor rating.

4 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

The color/adjectival ratings above include an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk shall be evaluated with the aid of the following descriptions.

Risk Level Description

Low Proposal may contain weaknesses which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome an difficulties.

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

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

Government monitoring.

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

The Government will evaluate 100 cartridges using visual and dimensional inspection to meet the requirements of specification PRF

16001A0006 and drawing 16001A0006. These rounds will not be fired as part of the Bid Sample Test. The performance requirements of

Terminal Ballistic Performance, Reliability, Cartridge Characteristics and Exterior Ballistics will be evaluated through testing to determine if the Offerors cartridge meets the relevant performance sections of the Performance Specification Cartridge 5.56

Millimeter, Frangible MK311 MOD 3, PRF 16001A0006.

For each of the Subfactors below, the test agency will record the results of each test and issue a test report of the results to the

Government evaluators.

M.2.1 Subfactor 1: Terminal Ballistic Performance__________________________________________________

To limit ricochet risk and assure that the projectile fragments, rather than penetrates a target upon impact, the Government will evaluate the frangibility and terminal ballistic performance of the Mk311 projectile.

a. Projectile Frangibility: 10 rounds will be fired against a steel plate as per Section 4.5.11 of PRF16001A0006 to evaluate if the Offerors projectile reliably fragments upon impact with the steel plate in accordance with the requirements in Section

3.5.11 of PRF16001A0006.

b. Projectile Terminal Ballistic Performance: 20 rounds will be fired against a steel plate as per Section 4.5.10 of

PRF16001A0006 to evaluate:

Threshold (T): that the Offerors projectile fragments and does not penetrate the steel plate

Objective (O): that the Offerors projectile fragments and does not penetrate the steel plate; in addition, projectile fragments shall not penetrate witness paper in accordance with the requirements in Section 3.5.10 of PRF16001A0006.

M.2.2 Subfactor 2: Reliability______________________________

5 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

To determine if the Offerors cartridge can be reliably fired from a weapon, the Government will evaluate bullet integrity and function and casualty performance of the cartridge at hot, cold and ambient temperatures.

a. Function and Casualty Performance: 200 rounds will be fired at hot (145o F), 200 rounds will be fired at cold (-25o

F) and 400 rounds will be fired at ambient (70o F) temperatures as per PRF16001A0006 Table VIII M4A1 LAT to evaluate that the cartridge functions without casualty in accordance with the requirements in 3.5.9 of PRF16001A0006. Cartridges per burst shall be fired in accordance with Appendix B of DTL13038145. Any critical and major failures as detailed in Table VII will be recorded.

b. Bullet Integrity: During the testing in paragraph M.2.2 Subfactor 2: a. Function and Casualty Performance, the test agency shall record the structural integrity of the bullet inside the weapon barrel and during flight between cold and hot temperatures as per Section 4.5.12 of PRF16001A0006 to evaluate if bullet structural integrity is maintained in accordance with the requirements in

Section 3.5.12 of PRF16001A0006.

M.2.3 Subfactor 3: Characteristics of Cartridge________________________________________________

In order to evaluate cartridge average velocity and pressure, high temperature projectile deformation and hot barrel cook off, an

Electronic Pressure, Velocity and Action Time (EPVAT), Dimensional Stability and Cook off test will be performed.

a. Electronic Pressure, Velocity and Action Time (EPVAT) Test

1. Average Velocity: 40 cartridges each will be conditioned to three temperatures - hot, cold and ambient - and fired as per Sections 4.5.2 of PRF16001A0006 to evaluate if the average velocity meets the requirements of Section 3.5.2b of

PRF16001A0006.

2. Pressure: 40 cartridges each will be conditioned to three temperatures - hot, cold and ambient - and fired from an EPVAT barrel (Drawing 8649410) as per Section 4.5.3 of PRF16001A0006 and DTL13038145, Appendix A, Electronic Pressure, Velocity and

Action Time (EPVAT) Test Procedure, to evaluate if the pressure meets the requirements of 3.5.3 of PRF16001A0006.

b. Dimensional Stability: 20 cartridges will be condition to 300\'baF and fired as per Section 4.4.2 of PRF16001A0006 to evaluate that the projectile does not deform in accordance with the requirements in Section 3.4.2 of PRF16001A0006.

c. Cook Off: A cartridge will be inserted into the chamber of an M4A1 as per Section 4.6.9 of PRF16001A0006 to determine if the cartridge meets the Cook Off requirement of Section 3.6.9 of PRF16001A0006. This test will consist of 360 cartridges.

M.2.4 Subfactor 4: Exterior Ballistic Performance__________________________________________________

The Government will evaluate if the Offerors cartridges can hit a target at 100 yards. 30 cartridges each at hot, cold and ambient temperatures will be fired against a target as per Section 4.5.6 of PRF16001A0006 to evaluate if the Offerors cartridges meet the dispersion requirement of Section 3.5.6 of PRF16001A0006.

M.3 FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL

The Technical Factor and Subfactors will receive a color/adjectival rating in accordance with the chart below.

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 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.

Within the Technical Factor, each Subfactor will be rated separately using the color code/adjectival ratings. Each Subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks (See Below). Each Subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings. The compilation of these Subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the Factor rating.

6 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

The color/adjectival ratings above include an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk shall be evaluated with the aid of the following descriptions.

Risk Level Description

Low Proposal may contain weaknesses which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome an difficulties.

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

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

Government monitoring.

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

M.3.1 Subfactor 1: Production_____________________________

The Offerors proposal will be evaluated on the adequacy of the Offerors capability and capacity to produce and deliver up to

26,400,000 cartridges per year according to the requirements of the solicitation. Note that the information in this Subfactor is for evaluation purposes only and the Contractor shall be required to meet the terms and conditions of the resulting contract.

The Governments evaluation will include the following criteria:

a. Capability: The Offerors capability will be evaluated based on the descriptions of proposed manufacturing facilities, equipment, processes, skills, and expertise necessary to determine if the Offeror fully comprehends the manufacturing capability requirements.

b. Capacity: The Offerors capacity will be evaluated based on the Offerors ability to meet the order quantity on a monthly basis. The Offerors existing capacity or plan to obtain the capacity to produce a total quantity of 26,400,000 cartridges per year will also be evaluated. The evaluation will address the types and numbers of machinery, production rates, and operators.

c. Delivery: The Offerors delivery plan will be evaluated based on reasonable monthly quantities over the delivery period. The plan will include the Offerors plan to complete order deliveries within 15 months including First Article Acceptance Test

(FAAT). The Offerors plan will also be evaluated to ensure that the deliveries are not heavily loaded toward the end of the delivery period.

M.3.2 Subfactor 2: Management_____________________________

The Offerors proposal will be evaluated to determine the adequacy of the Offerors ability to effectively plan, schedule and manage the program, as well as execute an acceptable supply chain management system to include their suppliers/subcontractors to the level

7 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

delineated in Attachment 0007, entitled Component Suppliers Template, to ensure all solicitation requirements are met. The Governments evaluation will include the following:

a. Organization: The adequacy of the Offerors evidence that demonstrates an effective approach to program management to include breakdown of required positions to any teaming structure, organizational reporting lines, and key positions within the organization.

b. Risk Management: The adequacy of the Offerors plan for identifying, mitigating, and managing all areas of risk. The adequacy of the Offerors example of a risk and its mitigation strategy will also be evaluated.

c. Integrated Master Plan (IMP)/Integrated Master Schedule (IMS):

1. IMP: The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offerors plan for all system management that the Offeror intends to use to execute the program.

2. IMS: The adequacy of the Offerors IMS will be evaluated to assess the tasks, durations, dependencies and sequencing of all actions, resources and the integration needed for the Offeror to comply with the requirements of the solicitation and meet the schedule requirements for one year with a quantity of 26,400,000 cartridges. No FAATs will be waived for evaluation purposes.

d. Supply Chain Management Plan: The adequacy of the Offerors supply chain management plan will be evaluated for compliance with the contract requirements with respect to the ability to obtain material and components.

M.3.3 Subfactor 3: Quality__________________________

The Offerors proposal will be evaluated to determine the adequacy of the Offerors Quality Management System (QMS), along with their plans to control material flow, ensure proper and complete failure analysis procedures, and ensure that all required testing assets are available to enable the Offeror to produce a quality product in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation. The Governments evaluation will include the following:

a. Quality Management Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offerors description detailing the effectiveness and suitability of their QMS, including their Quality Assurance Plan to determine the Offerors ability to meet applicable contract quality requirements.

b. Material Control System. The Government will evaluate the Offerors detailed description of their material control system including Statistical Process Control.

c. Failure Analysis. The Government will evaluate the Offerors detailed description of their methodology for conducting failure analysis in the event of product deficiencies and test failures.

d. Testing Assets. The Government will evaluate the Offerors detailed description of their facilities, equipment, and processes necessary to perform ballistic testing on all cartridge configurations in order to satisfy acceptance inspections.

M.3.4 Subfactor 4: Technical Approach_____________________________________

The Offerors proposal will be evaluated to determine the adequacy of the Offerors detailed evidence that demonstrates the Offeror thoroughly understands the requirements and technical aspects and has the ability to comply and verify that they can meet all

Government TDP requirements. The Governments evaluation will include the following criteria:

a. TDP Compliance Demonstration: The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror demonstrated that they reviewed the

Government TDP to ensure compliance prior to contract start and how the Offeror meets or plans to meet the requirements of the

Government TDP prior to contract award.

b. TDP Compliance Verification: The Government will evaluate the Offerors inspection system including acceptance testing for product feature verification to be used and their explanation of how this system will ensure full compliance with the TDP.

c. Configuration Management Plan: The Government will evaluate the Offerors description of how changes to the Government TDP

(Performance Specification and Top Level Drawing) will be tracked until implementation and then documented during the life of the contract.

M.4 FACTOR 3: PRICE

M.4.1 Prices proposed in Section B of the solicitation will be utilized to compute a total evaluated price. A price reasonableness determination will be made on the total evaluated price which will be used in the performance of a tradeoff analysis. If the Government

8 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

determines that adequate price competition was not obtained and/or if the total evaluated price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data and to evaluate such data utilizing the proposal analysis techniques delineated in the FAR 15.404-1 as deemed appropriate.

M.4.2 If an Offeror proposes the use of Government property in its possession, the total evaluated price will be adjusted to include a rental equivalent factor for each item of such property calculated in accordance with FAR 52.245-9. This adjustment will apply for the use of Government property by the Offeror as well as any subcontractor thereto. The value of the proposed Government property will be evaluated for cost realism.

M.4.3. Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns: If a HUBZone certified small business concern submits an offer in response to the solicitation, in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, when applicable and as required by the provision, an adjustment will be made by adding the applicable factor(s) to the price of other offers.

M.4.4 The total evaluated price will be computed by summing the weighted evaluated prices computed from the unit prices proposed in

Section B of the solicitation, the value of Government property in the Offerors (and any subcontractors) possession adjusted for cost realism and the price evaluation preferences for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, when applicable.

a. Items with a Single Numeric Quantity: The evaluated quantity for items with a single numeric quantity will be the stated quantity. The evaluated quantity will be multiplied by the proposed unit price to derive the evaluated amount. The evaluated amount will be multiplied by the weighted percent in order to derive the weighted evaluated price. The weighted evaluated price will be rounded to the nearest hundredth (two decimal places).

b. Items with Multiple Quantity Ranges: A weighted evaluated price will be calculated for each quantity range. The evaluated quantity for each quantity range will be the maximum quantity in the respective quantity range. The evaluated quantity in each range will be multiplied by the proposed unit price for that quantity range to derive the evaluated amount for each quantity range. The evaluated amount for each quantity range will be multiplied by the assigned weighted percentage to derive the weighted evaluated price for each quantity range. The weighted evaluated price will be rounded to the nearest hundredth (two decimal places).

M.5 FACTOR 4: TECHNICAL DATA RIGHTS

M.5.1 The Technical Data Rights Factor will receive a color/adjectival rating. The Technical Data Rights proposal will be evaluated based on the reasonableness of the cost, quantity required to be procured, and/or royalty conditions required, as well as the timeframe to acquire sufficient Technical Data Rights and any limitations imposed. The price and/or terms proposed by the Offeror for Government acquisition of Technical Data Rights will not be evaluated as part of the Price Factor. Any proposal from an Offeror with intellectual property who chooses not to propose Technical Data Rights will be evaluated in accordance with the color/adjectival ratings. However, to the extent known at the time an offer is submitted to the Government, the Offeror is still required to identify the technical data, algorithms, or computer software that the Offeror (including its potential subcontractors or suppliers) asserts should be furnished to the Government with restricted use, release, or disclosure in accordance with Section I of the RFP.

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 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.

The Technical Data Rights Factor will be rated using the color code/adjectival ratings. The Factor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and risks.

The color/adjectival ratings above include an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk shall be evaluated with the aid of the following descriptions.

9 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Risk Level Description

Low Proposal may contain weaknesses which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome an difficulties.

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

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

Government monitoring.

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

M.5.2 The above Technical Data Rights Factor Ratings/Risk Ratings are further explained below:

Blue/Outstanding: Offeror's proposed terms and conditions for the granting of Technical Data Rights are highly favorable to the

Government. The proposal clearly outlines the terms and conditions, all associated costs, and any minimum quantity (if applicable), in addition to providing the Government with the capability to obtain sufficient Technical Data Rights by the end of Ordering Period 3. The proposal grants sufficient Technical Data Rights necessary to allow the Government to compete the design, potentially secure additional sources of ammunition or parts, and use submitted technical data on any other Government programs.

Purple/Good: Offeror's proposed terms and conditions for the granting of Technical Data Rights are favorable to the Government. The proposal clearly outlines terms and conditions, all associated costs, and any minimum quantity (if applicable), in addition to providing the Government with the capability to obtain sufficient Technical Data Rights by the end of Ordering Period 3. Proposal grants sufficient Technical Data Rights necessary to allow the Government to compete the design, potentially secure additional sources of ammunition or parts, and use submitted technical data on any other Government programs.

Green/Acceptable: Offeror's proposed terms and conditions for the granting of Technical Data Rights are acceptable to the Government.

The proposal adequately outlines the terms and conditions, all associated costs, and any minimum quantity (if applicable), in addition to providing the Government with the capability to obtain sufficient Technical Data Rights by the end of Ordering Period 3. Proposal grants sufficient Technical Data Rights necessary to allow the Government to compete the design, potentially secure additional sources of ammunition or parts, and use submitted technical data on any other Government programs.

Yellow/Marginal: Offeror's proposed terms and conditions for the granting of Technical Data Rights are unfavorable to the Government.

The proposal does not adequately outline the terms and conditions, all associated costs, and any minimum quantify (if applicable), or does not allow for obtaining sufficient Technical Data Rights by the end of Ordering Period 3. Proposal does not grant sufficient

Technical Data Rights necessary to allow the Government to compete the design, potentially secure additional sources of ammunition or parts, and use submitted technical data on any other Government programs.

If a proposal fails to offer terms and conditions for the granting of Technical Data Rights, then the Factor will be rated

Yellow/Marginal.

Red/Unacceptable: Not applicable.

M.6 FACTOR 5: PAST PERFORMANCE

10 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.6.1 The Offeror and its major/key subcontractors will be evaluated on the quality of their relevant and recent past performance, as it relates to the probability of success on this contract. Both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used to evaluate the Offerors past performance. A single confidence rating will be established.

M.6.2 For the purpose of evaluating proposals, recent is defined as occurring within the following time standards: 1) occurring within the past three (3) years, or 2) awarded earlier than three (3) years ago, but for which deliveries/performance occurred or were scheduled to occur within the past three (3) years. However, the Government may evaluate any performance in the period subsequent from the closing date, but prior to the date of award. Relevant is defined as contracts demonstrating technical/management capabilities the same as or similar to those required to perform on this item. Major/key subcontractors are defined as those that will be providing critical hardware or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed price.

M.6.3 This evaluation will encompass all aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including the Offerors detailed record of:

1) compliance of products, services, documents, and related deliverables to specification requirements and standards of good workmanship; 2) commitment to customer satisfaction and business-like concern for customers interest, and 3) timeliness of performance for services and product deliverables, including the administrative aspects of performance.

M.6.4 Based on the Offerors previous and current experience and performance on same or similar items (maximum three (3) years), including the frequency of cost growths and schedule delays, the Government will assess those risks associated with the Offerors past performance. The Government will focus its inquiry of the Offerors record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, and quality of product, timeliness of performance, business practices, and customer significant achievement. Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use data obtained from other sources.

M.6.5 Performance Relevancy Assessment. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offerors past performance to determine if work performed in the past is relevant as relevant is defined in M.6.2 above. Relevancy is not separately rated;

however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant, and what is not relevant. In conducting the performance relevancy assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

M.6.6 Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror ______________________ performed under the contract scope. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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.

Neutral Confidence 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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

11 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.7 FACTOR 6: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

M.7.1 The Small Business Participation Factor will receive a color/adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate the extent of first-tier small business participation (in terms of the Offeror's proposed Total Contract Price) which the Offeror credibly proposes to subcontract to U.S. small business (SB) concerns (including Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB), Women-Owned Small

Businesses (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone SB), Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSB),Service Disabled Veteran-

Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) and/or Historically Black Colleges or Universities and Minority Institutions (HBCU/MI) in the performance of the contract. For the purpose of this evaluation, the extent of Offeror (or joint venture partner/teaming arrangement) participation in proposed contract performance, where the Offeror is a U.S. small business concern, for North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) code 332992, will also be considered small business participation.

M.7.2 The evaluation will consist of the following:

a. The extent to which the proposal identifies challenging goals for participation by U.S. small business concerns and the adequacy of the rationale that support those goals (to include, as described above, the participation of the Offeror if it is a

U.S. small business concern). The extent of participation of such concerns will be evaluated in terms of the percentage of the

Offeror's proposed Total Contract Price.

b. An assessment of the realism, which includes strengths and weaknesses, that the Offeror will achieve the levels of small business participation identified in the proposal. This assessment will be based on an assessment of the Offeror's proposed small business participation approach and the probability that the Offeror will satisfy commitments and requirements, on the resulting

AA40 contract, based upon the extent of satisfaction of FAR 52.219-8 and/or FAR 52.219-9 (as applicable) commitments on prior contracts.

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 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.8 DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY:

M.8.1 As an element of determining the responsibility of Offerors who are large businesses, the PCO will evaluate the adequacy of the

Offerors Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.705.

M.8.2 For small businesses, a Certificate of Competency may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 19.6.

M.8.3 A Pre-award Survey may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 9.106.

M.8.4 A Pre-award Clearance by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) will be required in accordance with FAR

22.805(a).

12 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

13 13