Amendment_0003.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

W15QKN

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - NJ

PICATINNY ARSENAL, NJ 07806-5000

MELISSA L. SENA

EMAIL: MELISSA.L.SENA.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W15QKN-17-R-0140

2017OCT12

X

X

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 11

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: MELISSA L. SENA

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: ACC-NJ-CC/(973)724-9002

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

1. The purpose of amendment 0003 to solicitation W15QKN-17-R-0140 is as follows:

a) Complete delivery address for proposals is as follows:

U.S. Army Contracting Command - New Jersey

ACC-NJ-CC

ATTN: Ms. Heather A. Gandy

Building 10, Phipps Road

Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806

973-724-3638 heather.a.gandy.civ@mail.mil or

U.S. Army Contracting Command - New Jersey

ACC-NJ-CC

ATTN: Ms. Maria Robertson

Building 10, Phipps Road

Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806

973-724-6553

Maria.k.robertson.civ@mail.mil

b) Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, is revised to update paragraph M.2.1.1 as follows:

FROM:

M.2.1.1 The Technical Factor has Subfactors which are listed below:

Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Plan

Subfactor 2: Quality Management System/Quality Assurance Plan

Subfactor 3: Management Plan

Of the three (3) Technical Subfactors, the Manufacturing Plan Subfactor is more important than the Quality Assurance and Critical Safety

Plan Subfactor, and the Quality Assurance and Critical Safety Plan is more important than the Management Plan Subfactor.

TO:

M.2.1.1 The Technical Factor has Subfactors which are listed below:

Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Plan

Subfactor 2: Quality Management System/Quality Assurance Plan

Subfactor 3: Management Plan

Of the three (3) Technical Subfactors, the Manufacturing Plan Subfactor is more important than the Quality Management System/Quality

Assurance Plan Subfactor, and the Quality Management System/Quality Assurance Plan Subfactor is more important than the Management Plan

Subfactor.

c) Section J List of Attachment is revised to add Attachment 0020: RAMS GFP Test Procedures - Distribution D.

d) Responses to the following solicitation questions received in regard to Solicitation W15QKN-17-R-0140 are provided as follows under

Amendment 0003:

2 11

W15QKN-17-R-0140 0003

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Amendment 0003 Question 1: see * below

Amendment 0003 Question 2: Section L.22.2.3.1 Subparagraph c. Representations through System for Award Management states: "...all

Offerors must submit Reps/Certs data into the System for Award Management (S.A.M.) and provide one (1) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy (on CD) submitted as an .XPS file." QUESTION: If an Offeror has updated their Reps/Certs data in SAM, is a hard copy as well as an e-copy still required?

Response to Question 2: Yes, in accordance with Section L.22.2.3. all Offerors must submit Reps/Certs data into the System for Award

Management (S.A.M.) AND provide one (1) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy (on CD) submitted as an .XPS file with their proposal.

Please note, in accordance with Section L.22.4.5.1 each Offeror is also required to complete Section K - Completed Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offeror for submission in Volume 5 of their proposal.

Amendment 0003 Question 3: see * below

Amendment 0003 Question 4: Can hard copies and electronic copies of Offeror's proposals be hand-delivered? If so, where can they be delivered?

Response to Question 4: Picatinny Arsenal is a restricted access facility. See Item 1.a) above for complete Delivery Address and Points of Contact information. Offerors intending to hand carry their proposal for delivery need to take the following steps in order to be eligible for access:

Step One: You must provide the following information at least 2 working days prior to intended arrival to the points of contact identified in item 1.a) above for each individual requesting access to Picatinny Arsenal:

Arrival Date:

Departure Date:

Arrival Time:

First Name:

Middle Name:

Last Name:

Company:

Visitor Email:

Destination:

Vehicle Make:

Vehicle Model:

Plate No:

Purpose:

Step Two: All Non-DoD visitors (Non-CAC card/Military ID holders) are required to have a Criminal History check prior to being granted access to the installation and are required to complete a Notification and Authorization to Release Criminal Information for Entry form and will need to bring this form with them to the Visitor Center for processing. If you plan on hand carrying your proposal for delivery please request a copy of this form from the points of contact identified in item 1.a) above.

PLEASE NOTE Picatinny Arsenal is a restricted access installation. It is the responsibility of the offerors to ensure their proposal is delivered in accordance with the proposal response date and time. If you plan on hand delivering your proposal, Offerors should allow sufficient time for processing to gain entry to the facility and for delivering their proposal to the delivery address. Late proposals will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

Amendment 0003 Question 5: Since the USG is requesting electronic copies of Offeror's proposals, has consideration been given to electronic submission only of proposals?

Response to Question 5: As stated in Section L.22.2.3.1. subparagraph b. of the solicitation proposal submission should consist of the following: Original and three (3) paper copies and eight (8) electronic Compact Disc (CD) copies of the proposal volumes.

Amendment 0003 Question 6: see * below

Amendment 0003 Question 7: see * below

Amendment 0003 Question 8: see * below

Amendment 0003 Question 9: Section M.2.1.1 states that "Subfactor 2 is called Quality Management System / Quality Assurance Plan";

However, the following paragraph states: "Of the three (3) Technical Subfactors, the Manufacturing Plan Subfactor is more important that the Quality Assurance and Critical Safety Plan Subfactor, the Quality Assurance and Critical Safety Plan subfactor is more important than the Management Plan Subfactor." QUESTION: Where did "Critical Safety Plan" become a requirement, as it is not listed in

3 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Section L? Is this a typographical error? If not, could additional guidance be provided in Section L regarding the "Critical Safety

Plan"?

Response to Question 9: Please see item 1.b above, as well as the change incorporated to Section M.2.1.1 via Amendment 0003, which addresses the above question.

* Amendment 0003 Questions 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 and Government Response are addressed as follows:

The Government has received technical questions 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 pertaining directly to the Technical Data Package (TDP) drawings which contains limited distribution statement markings. Consequently the questions, as well as the Governments response to the questions, will only be made available to Contractors who have submitted the appropriate paperwork and have been cleared to receive a copy of the

TDP. Please note additional TDP drawings are included in the Government Response and are being incorporated into Section J of the solicitation as Attachment 0020, entitled RAMS GFP Test Procedures.

To obtain a copy of the TDP, Questions 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 and the Government responses (Attachment 0021), as well as Attachment 0020, please follow the procedures outlined in the solicitation for requesting a copy of the Technical Data Package. Potential Offerors who have already submitted the required documentation and have already received a copy of the TDP MUST still submit a request via email to obtain a) Amendment 0003 Questions 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 and the Government responses (Attachment 0021), and b) a copy of Attachment 0020, but DO NOT need to resubmit the DD Form 2345, AMSTA-AR Form 1350 or the Non Disclosure and Non Use Agreement forms. Please submit your request via email to the points of contact identified in the solicitation.

2. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0005 ***

4 11

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 0020 RAMS GFP TEST PROCEDURES - DISTRIBUTION D DATA

Attachment 0021 AMENDMENT 0003 TDP QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES -DISTRIBUTION D DATA

PROCEDURES APPLY

5 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.1 The Government intends to make a single 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 SSA giving the appropriate consideration to the four (4) evaluation Factors: Technical, Price, 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 the integrated assessment, the SSA will give due consideration to all of the Factors and Subfactors and their relative order of importance.

For evaluation purposes, the Technical Factor is more important than the Price Factor, the Price Factor is more important than the Past

Performance Factor, the Past Performance Factor is more important than the Small Business Participation Factor. Price will be evaluated, but will not be rated with a color or adjectival rating. When all evaluation Factors other than Price are combined, they are significantly more important than Price. However, affordability may become more determinative in the event competing technical ratings are closely grouped and offer comparable value to the Government. 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.

M.1.2 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.

M.1.3 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.

M.2. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED:

M.2.1 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: Technical Factor

Factor 2: Price Factor

Factor 3: Past Performance Factor

Factor 4: Small Business Participation Factor

M.2.1.1 The Technical Factor has Subfactors which are listed below:

Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Plan

Subfactor 2: Quality Management System/Quality Assurance Plan

Subfactor 3: Management Plan

Of the three (3) Technical Subfactors, the Manufacturing Plan Subfactor is more important than the Quality Management System/Quality

Assurance Plan Subfactor, and the Quality Management System/Quality Assurance Plan Subfactor is more important than the Management Plan

Subfactor.

M.2.1.2 The Price Factor does not have any Subfactors.

M.2.1.3 The Past Performance Factor does not have any Subfactors.

M.2.1.4 The Small Business Participation Factor does not have any Subfactors.

M.2.2 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.

6 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

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

g. 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 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or the Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

M.3. EVALUATION APPROACH:

M.3.1 TECHNICAL FACTOR EVALUATION APPROACH

M.3.1.1 Careful, complete, 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 will weigh 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.3.2 FACTOR 1: 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 un-awardable.

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, risks (see below), and uncertainties.

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.

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

The adjectival and color ratings from the table above have 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 will not be separately rated, but will be used to inform the evaluators when considering and assigning the appropriate adjectival/color rating. Technical risk will be considered using the definition in the table below.

Adjectival Rating : Description

Low : Proposal may contain weaknesses which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High : Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of

7 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

schedule, 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 unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

M.3.2.1 SUB-FACTOR 1: Manufacturing Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offerors detailed Manufacturing Plan for the manufacturing (inspection, assembly and testing) of the

RAMS M152 and MK152 MOD 0 to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will assess the information provided and the adequacy of the Offerors manufacturing plan and the adequacy of the proposed manufacturing plan for practicality, realism and supportability. The evaluators will consider the following areas:

a. The adequacy of the process maps for each assembly and sub-assembly to meet the requirements of the solicitation, beginning with the receipt of incoming raw materials and ending with the shipment of finished product. This includes, but is not limited to: supply chain ordering, incoming inspection, manufacturing, in-process inspection, testing, packaging, marking, and shipment. A description of manufacturing processes, including identification of subcontractors and where work will be performed (in-house or subcontractor), their involvement in manufacturing, inspection, test and certification methods.

b. The adequacy the Offerors essential manufacturing facilities, manufacturing equipment, test facilities, tooling, and test inspection equipment in place to meet the requirements of the solicitation or the plan to obtain such equipment that is not currently owned or available by the Offeror in order to meet the requirement, to include the cost and schedule for obtaining the facilities and equipment, to achieve the required delivery schedule.

c. The adequacy and evidence of the Offerors capability to manufacture and test communication type electronic assemblies/subassemblies, to include the Offerors expertise and ability to assemble, test, and troubleshoot Electronic Safe & Arming circuits including its mechanical interfaces.

d. The adequacy and evidence of the Offerors knowledge and production capability in electrical/electronic cabling and cabling attachment to metal surfaces.

e. The adequacy of the Offerors material/parts obsolescence program used to identify single point failures for materials and suppliers, including efforts to mitigate these risks and prevent material non-availability.

M.3.2.2 SUBFACTOR 2: Quality Management System/Quality Assurance Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offerors Quality Management System/Quality Assurance Plan to meet the Quality Assurance requirements as defined in the Statement of Work paragraph 3.1.1. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

a. The adequacy of Quality Management System/Quality Assurance Plan proposed to meet the applicable contract quality requirements. The

Quality Management System/Quality Assurance Plan for the RAMS M152 and MK152 MOD 0 programs shall encompass all technical and manufacturing aspects of production including, but not limited to, engineering, design, test equipment, fabrication, assembly process, production routers, inspection program, and test methods.

b. The adequacy and thoroughness of the Offerors Quality Management Systems/Quality Assurance Plan for the identification, tracking, and control of Critical Safety Items and Critical Characteristics to include the flow down from engineering to the production floor including suppliers.

c. The adequacy of the Quality Management System/Quality Assurance Plan and whether or not it is certified to or compliant with ISO

9001:2015, or an equivalent quality standard acceptable to the Government and how the plan intends to convey these requirements to its suppliers and its formal follow-up process to ensure that pertinent information is received, understood, and appropriately implemented as well as identification of any initiatives used to minimize quality problems.

d. The adequacy of and evidence that the Offeror understands the processes for identification of, inspection of, and control of key parameters that could result in loss of performance, test failures, or reduced reliability. (e.g. frequency of inspection, Process

Control/Statistical Process Control methods, inventory management) to include a description of the processes for detection, segregation, and handling of non-conforming material and associated rework plans.

e. The adequacy of the Offerors Configuration Management System that would be used for the RAMS M152 and MK152 MOD 0 and the description of how configuration changes are handled at the prime and subcontractor level. The adequacy of the Offerors description of how engineering changes, deviations and waivers to drawings and specifications are processed, reviewed, and acted upon.

f. The adequacy of and evidence of the Offerors capability and process for conducting Failure Reporting/Failure Analysis and Corrective

Action implementation to include the investigation of and root cause analysis of electronic assembly and subassembly failures.

8 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.3.2.3 SUBFACTOR 3: Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the description of the Offerors Program Management Plan/ Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master

Schedule (IMS) as it pertains to all aspects of production of the RAMS M152 and MK152 MOD 0. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

a. The adequacy and completeness of the Program Management Plan/Integrated Master Plan (IMP) that the Offeror intends to use to execute the RAMS M152 and MK152 MOD 0 program including a detailed description of the management systems and management processes which will be used to manage the requirements and to control cost, schedule and technical risk. The adequacy and thoroughness of the IMP and IMS in defining the programs critical path, the required levels of engineering support, the production and delivery schedule, detailed tasks, durations, dependencies, and sequencing of actions including major/key subcontractor and suppliers schedules, while showing critical paths including events, accomplishments, and criteria to ensure its production program meets all solicitation requirements. The adequacy of the detailed description of the management systems and management processes which will be used to manage subcontractors.

b. The adequacy of the Offerors Risk Management Plan that identifies critical program technical, and schedule risk areas and the

Offerors process and methods used to mitigate, monitor, and track them to ensure meeting all program milestones and delivery schedules.

This includes the Offerors risk mitigation strategies and the follow-on process to track these risk and negate them wherever possible.

c. The adequacy of the information provided and the adequacy of the Offeror's organizational structure and responsibilities established for the purposes of accomplishing the requirements of the contract including:

c.i. The various functional components of the Offerors organization structure and the responsibilities of the various organizational components.

c.ii. The Offerors key individuals, their skills, their roles and responsibility, and experience level relevant to this acquisition, engineering staff, production managers, technicians, quality managers, and support staff supply chain.

c.iii. The adequacy of the description and evidence of the training and recertification process for skilled technicians and electronic assemblers.

M.3.3 FACTOR 2: PRICE

M.3.3.1 Prices proposed in the Price Matrix attachment to 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 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.3.3.2 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.3.3.3 The total evaluated price will be computed by summing the weighted evaluated prices computed from the unit prices proposed in the Price Matrix and the value of Government property in the Offerors (and any subcontractors) possession adjusted for cost realism and the price evaluation preferences for Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business Concerns, when applicable.

M.3.3.4 Unbalanced Pricing. The offeror's proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing utilizing cost or price analysis techniques.

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced. 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. Offers that include unreasonably high unit prices, for example the First Article Test CLINs, may be determined to be unbalanced and rejected in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

M.3.4 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

M.3.4.1 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.3.4.2 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

9 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

critical hardware or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed price.

M.3.4.3 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.3.4.4 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.3.4.5 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 C.4.2 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.3.4.6 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.

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.3.5 FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

M.4.5.1 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 SBs, Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB), Women-Owned Small Businesses

(WOSB), HUBZone SB, Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSB), and/or Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) 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 334220, will also be considered small business participation.

M.3.5.2 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

10 11

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

the rationale that support those goals (to include, as described above, the participation of the Offeror if it is a U.S. SB 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 RAMS M152 and

MK152 Mod 0 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 small business objectives.

Purple : Good : Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Green : Acceptable : Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow : Marginal : Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red : Unacceptable : Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M.3.6 DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY:

M.3.6.1 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.3.6.2 For small businesses, a Certificate of Competency may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 19.6.

M.3.6.3 A Preaward Survey may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 9.106.

M.3.6.4 For actions over $10M, a Preaward Clearance by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) will be required in accordance with FAR 22.805(a).

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0002 ***

11 11