W15QKN24R0012 Amendment 0004.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

POLIA QUILES

EMAIL: POLIA.M.QUILES.CIV@ARMY.MIL

W15QKN-24-R-0012

2024FEB27

X

X

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 9

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued Page of

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Buyer Name: POLIA QUILES

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCNJ-SL/(973)724-2703

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

W15QKN-24-R-0012

Amendment 0004

The Purpose of Amendment 0004 is to:

1. Correct Section M Paragraph FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED as follows:

FROM: "Of the three Technical Subfactors, the Manufacturing Plan, and the Quality Assurance Plan are of equal importance and more important than the Management Plan are all of equal importance and more important than."

TO: "Of the three Technical Subfactors, the Manufacturing Plan, the Quality Assurance Plan the Management Plan are all of equal importance."

2. Change Section J as follows:

a. Add Attachment 0015 QA W15QKN24R0012 dated 2024APR12 to incorporate questions received from offerors and Government responses.

b. Add Attachment 0016 ATPD-2352 - PURCHASE DESCRIPTION TRANSPARENT ARMOR - REV T dated 2013MAY08.

3. All other solicitation terms and conditions remain unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0005 ***

2 9

W15QKN-24-R-0012

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 0015 ATTACHMENT 0015 QA W15QKN24R0012 DATED 2024APR12 12-APR-2024 001

Attachment 0016 ATPD-2352 - PURCHASE DESCRIPTION TRANSPARENT ARMOR - REV T 08-MAY-2013 039

3 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to make up to two awards as a result of this RFP. The Government will select for award the proposals that are most advantageous and represent the best value to the Government, with the Source Selection Authority (SSA) giving the appropriate consideration to the three evaluation Factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. 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 of the evaluation results, 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 Past Performance Factor and the Past Performance

Factor is more important than the Price Factor. All non-Price Factors, when combined, are 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 and/or Past Performance rating(s) if the SSA determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government. In order to be considered for award a rating of no less than

Acceptable/Green must be achieved for the Technical Factor and all Subfactors. Also, an offer with a Past Performance rating of Limited or No Confidence shall be deemed un-awardable.

FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

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 following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor in the event that the Technical and Past Performance evaluation results of all Offerors proposals are substantially the same. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

Factor 1: Technical: The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 Manufacturing Plan

b. Subfactor 2 Quality Assurance Plan

c. Subfactor 3 Management Plan

Of the three Technical Subfactors, the Manufacturing Plan, the Quality Assurance Plan the Management Plan are all of equal importance.

Evaluation of the Offerors proposal shall address each Technical subfactor as it applies to the Statement of Work (SOW). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the Evaluation Approach, Paragraph D of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. Key points within each subfactor will not be individually rated; their overall evaluation will form the basis of each subfactor rating. The compilation of these subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the Technical Factor rating.

Factor 2 Past Performance: Each Offerors past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment. The Past

Performance Factor does not have any subfactors.

Factor 3 Price: The resulting award(s) will be an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract utilizing Firm Fixed Price

(FFP) delivery orders. Prices proposed in Attachment 0001 Price Matrix of the Solicitation will be utilized to compute a total evaluated price. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort. The Price Factor does not have any subfactors.

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offerors methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1 Manufacturing Plan: The Government will evaluate the Offerors detailed Manufacturing Plan for the production and testing

4 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

of the Armor Hardware, Turret Systems, and PIKs (Attachment 009, Technical Data Packages, TDPs) to meet the requirements of the RFP.

This plan will also be evaluated on the inclusion and details on major subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as those whose subcontract is for 25% or more of the proposed effort or price. In Subfactor 1, the Offeror shall provide information to substantiate the following areas:

KEY POINT #1: The adequacy and feasibility of the Offerors proposed manufacturing process and process map for the Armor Hardware, Turret

Systems, and PIKs (Attachment 009, Technical Data Packages, TDPs) to include the steps required for its manufacture, assembly, inspection, test, marking and packaging as well as the sequence of operations for all assemblies, subassemblies, and parts in order to meet the requirements of the RFP. The adequacy of the Offerors proposed information on the elements that the Offeror intends to subcontract or purchase as materials/parts.

KEY POINT #2: The adequacy and feasibility of the prime and major subcontractor facilities, manufacturing equipment, inspection equipment, test equipment, and tooling to meet the RFP requirements for production rates, quality requirements, and schedule. This will include facilities and equipment that are not currently owned or leased by the Offeror and their plans for obtaining the facilities and equipment. The Government will evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the Offerors proposed capability to meet production rates of a minimum up to 100 per month for each awarded CLIN with the capability to ramp up within 6 months to a minimum of 300 per month per LIN or its plan and how long it will take to acquire that capability if required by the Government.

KEY POINT #3: The adequacy and feasibility of all special process areas and associated process controls and equipment maintenance plans which will be utilized in the production of the Armor Hardware, Turret Systems, and PIKs (Attachment 009, Technical Data Packages, TDPs).

Subfactor 2 Quality Assurance Plan: This subfactor evaluates the Offerors Quality Assurance Plan (QAP). The Government will evaluate the Offerors QAP to meet the Quality Assurance requirements as defined in the RFP. The Government will assess the Offerors plan that is to be used for the Armor Hardware, Turret Systems, and PIKs (Attachment 0009 Technical Data Packages, TDPs of the RFP). In SubFactor 2, the Offeror will provide information to substantiate the following areas:

KEY POINT #1: The adequacy and feasibility of the proposed process to identify, manage, and control submitted Quality Assurance data which shall include identification of all critical (if applicable), major, and minor technical characteristics, the manufacturing process involved, the specific pieces of equipment and their function involved in fabrication, assembly, inspection and test (acceptance inspection equipment) at the prime contractor and subcontractor levels. All technical characteristics are identified within the TDP under the Quality Assurance Provisions (QAP) drawing number 12993884 identified in the notes of each applicable drawing. If a particular characteristic of the part is to be specifically inspected as critical, major or minor it would be identified via this requirement. The adequacy and feasibility of the methods to control the production and inspection process for each identified characteristic, as well as the adequacy of the proposed non-conformance notification system will be evaluated.

KEY POINT #2: The adequacy and feasibility of the proposed QAP to meet RFP requirements (through certification with or compliance with

ISO 9001:2015), or the equivalent system proposed by the Offeror. The Government shall also evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the proposed process to document and control the manufacturing processes with respect to their impact on performance, safety, and storage life expectancy.

KEY POINT #3: The adequacy and feasibility of the planned in-house quality processes and procedures to be followed throughout all areas of performance including incoming inspection, fabrication, assembly, inspection, test, packaging, marking, and shipping. The Government will also evaluate if the individual quality requirements are flowed down to the major subcontractors and suppliers in order to meet specified requirements.

KEY POINT #4: The adequacy and feasibility of the proposed failure investigation process as well as details covering non-conforming material procedures to include prevention, detection, and control (segregation). The Government will evaluate the description, appropriateness and adequacy of the Quality Tools and Systems as well as any initiatives to minimize quality problems proposed for use on the Armor Hardware, Turret Systems, and PIKs (Attachment 009, Technical Data Packages, TDPs).

Subfactor 3 Management Plan: This sub-factor evaluates the Offerors Management Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offerors

Management Plan and the details on how the manufacturing of the Armor Hardware, Turret Systems, and PIKs (Attachment 009, Technical Data

Packages, TDPs) will meet the RFP requirements. The Offeror will provide information to substantiate the following areas:

KEY POINT #1: The adequacy and feasibility and completeness of the IMS showing the schedule of events, inclusive of qualification and sequential environmental testing by statement of work tasks and significant milestones. The Government will assess whether the Offerors

IMS proveded the necessary detail of all the specific piece-parts, sub-assemblies and components required for the Armor Hardware, Turret

Systems, and PIKs (Attachment 009, Technical Data Packages, TDPs) to demonstrate the adequacy and feasibility of its IMS. The

Government will evaluate the Offerors discussions of parts and assemblies that have lead times in excess of 120 days. The Government will also evaluate the adequacy of the Offerors critical path, and assess the Management Plan and whether schedule data has been supplied on major subcontractors and suppliers.

KEY POINT #2: The adequacy of the proposed approach and rationale for either doing the work in-house, subcontracting it and the appropriateness of the criteria and rationale used to select the subcontractors that will make each part as well as alternative

5 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

suppliers; and the Offerors system approach to managing subcontractors, vendors, and suppliers as a technical enterprise or concern. The

Government will also assess the adequacy and feasibility of the projected business arrangements, work share, direct lines of authority and communication. the Government will also assess the adequacy of the Offerors organizational chart and the appropriateness of the identified key individuals and their skill and experience relative the Armor Hardware, Turret Systems, and PIKs (Attachment 009, Technical Data Packages, TDPs).

KEY POINT #3: The adequacy and feasibility of the Configuration Management System that would be used for the Armor Hardware, Turret

Systems, and PIKs (Attachment 009, Technical Data Packages, TDPs). The Government will assess the Offerors description of how engineering changes, and variances to drawings and specifications are processed, reviewed, and acted upon. The Government will evaluate the Offerors Configuration Management Organization and the description of how configuration changes are accomplished and controlled at the subcontractor level.

Evaluation Methodology

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and

Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

The definitions of Technical Risk (Table 2) are included for further clarification but should not be evaluated as a separate rating.

| TABLE 1 COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS |

| Color | Rating | Description |

| Blue | Outstanding | Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the |

| | | requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one |

| | | significant strength, 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 or significant |

| | | 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of |

| | | performance is unacceptably high. |

| TABLE 2 - Technical Risk Definitions |

| Adjectival Rating | Description |

| Low | Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause |

| | disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. |

| | Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be |

| | able to overcome any difficulties. |

| Moderate | Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which|

| | may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased |

| | cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close |

| | Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. |

| High | Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which|

| | is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of |

| | schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor |

| | emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome |

| | any difficulties. |

| Unacceptable | Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses |

6 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

| | that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance |

Findings Definitions

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offerors 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.

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.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

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. See FAR 15.001.

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).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

3. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the Offerors record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the SOW.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offerors (and major subcontractors) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors and compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. For the purposes of this SSP/Requirement, major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offerors overall team who are expected to perform 25% percent or more of the proposed effort or price. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned a neutral confidence rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 332999.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The

Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each Offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offerors past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 3) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

| Table 3 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings |

| Rating | Definition |

7 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

| 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; or the |

| | data is not recent. |

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the Offerors past performance. Documented results from Past

Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment but no separate quality rating will be given.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 4 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

| TABLE 4 - 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 requireded effort |

4. Price Factor. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for Offerors Price proposals. The Government will fully evaluate all priced

Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) ordering periods for award. The evaluation of all ordering periods will not obligate the Government to place more than the minimum order. The Offerors Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

a. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Prices proposed in Attachment 0001 Price Matrix will be utilized to compute a total evaluated price. A price reasonableness determination will be made on the total evaluated price, using one or more of the techniques described in

FAR 15.404-1.

(i) If an Offeror proposes the use of Government property already 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.

b. Overall /Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

(i) Compliance: The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L Instructions to the Offerors.

(ii) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offerors overall Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g).

8 9

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government

(see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

(iii) Errors: The Offerors Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

(iv) Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the weighted evaluated prices computed from the unit prices proposed in Price Matrix, including the evaluated per unit rental value for Government property in the Offerors (and any subcontractors) possession. The weighted evaluated prices will be calculated as follows:

(1) Production CLINs (1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004): Evaluated quantities will be established for each CLIN and Ordering Period. The evaluated quantity for each CLIN and Ordering Period will be multiplied by a weighted unit price to calculate a weighted evaluated price for each CLIN and Ordering Period. The weighted unit prices will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price for each quantity, including the evaluated per unit rental value of government property, by the weighting established for that quantity and then summing the amounts. The weighted unit prices will be rounded to the nearest hundredth (two decimal places). The weighted evaluated prices will be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The weighted evaluated prices for each CLIN/ordering period will be summed to compute the evaluated price for the Production CLINs.

(2) Items with a Single Numeric Quantity (FAT CLINs 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104): 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 for each CLIN, including the evaluated per unit rental value of government property, to derive the evaluated amount. The evaluated amount will be multiplied by the weighting established for that quantity/CLIN in order to derive the weighted evaluated price. The weighted evaluated price will be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The weighted evaluated prices for each CLIN/ordering period will be summed to compute the evaluated price for the FAT CLINs.

(3) Items with Multiple Quantity Ranges (Spare Parts CLIN 1005): Evaluated quantities will be established for each Spare Part and related FAT proposed for each CLIN and Ordering Period. The weighted unit prices for each Spare Part will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit prices for each quantity range, including the evaluated per unit rental value of government property, by the weighting established for that quantity range and then summing the amounts. The weighted unit prices will be rounded to the nearest hundredth (two decimal places). The evaluated quantity for each part and related FAT in each CLIN and Ordering Period will be multiplied by a weighted unit price to calculate the weighted evaluated prices for all spare parts proposed for each CLIN and Ordering Period The weighted evaluated price will be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The weighted evaluated prices for each Spare Part and related FAT in each

CLIN/ordering period will be summed to compute the evaluated price for the Spare Parts CLIN.

DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held, although the Government reserves the right to make awards without first entering into discussions. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of seven calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each Offeror will be notified of the time and place at least two business days prior to their discussion session. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the Offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place via video teleconference or conference call in.

DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY

1. As an element of determining the responsibility of Offerors and in accordance with FAR 9.103(c) an Offeror must demonstrate its responsibility, including, when necessary, the responsibility of its proposed subcontractors. Any Offeror upon which a determination of responsibility cannot be made, may be ineligible for award.

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

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

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

9 9