W519TC-24-R-0003 AMENDMENT 0003 08 DEC 2023.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

W519TC

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - RI

ROCK ISLAND, IL 61299-8000

MALLORY D. SCHMITT

EMAIL: MALLORY.D.SCHMITT.CIV@ARMY.MIL

W519TC-24-R-0003

2023OCT11

X

X 2023DEC22 12:00pm

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 10

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: MALLORY D. SCHMITT

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCRI-AL/(309)782-6643

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of Amendment 0003 is as follows:

1. Revise the contract type from Firm Fixed Price with EPA to Firm Fixed Price. FFP with EPA was previously identified in error.

2. Extend the question due date from 04 December 2023 to 15 December 2023 and extend the proposal due date from 11 December 2023 to 22

December 2023.

3. Clarify the SFAT language in paragraph M.4.2.

4. Incorporate Surrogate Price language for nitrocellulose in section I001.

5. Update various clauses to the most recent version. FAR clauses 52.209-3 and 52.209-4 both dated 01 September 1989 have been deleted from the solicitation as they have been replaced by newer versions. Please refer to section I for full clause details.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0004 ***

2 10

W519TC-24-R-0003

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

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

I-1 DELETED 52.209-3 FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL -- CONTRACTOR TESTING SEP/1989

I-2 DELETED 52.209-4 FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL -- GOVERNMENT TESTING SEP/1989

Nitrocellulose - Surrogate Price Clause

This clause is only applicable if offerors are unable to obtain firm fixed pricing for nitrocellulose. Quantity requirements and delivery schedule information are included in Section B for identification only. Offerors are required to complete and submit the 60mm

(M204, M235, M236), 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and 120mm (M234A1) Mortar Propelling Charge Price Matrix identified as Attachment

0001 in Section J. Offerors shall complete this Price Matrix in accordance with the instructions in Section L in Microsoft Excel format.

The pricing submitted in the Price Matrix shall be fully executable by the U.S. Government at the unit prices and quantity range limits specified in the Price Matrix.

NOTE: For evaluation purposes of this solicitation, Offerors shall use the following surrogate price for Nitrocellulose (NC) that is restricted to the NTIB:

NC FY25-28: $13.00/lb

The USG will adjust the Offeror(s)' Price Matrix after award based on actual, final negotiated price for NC. The adjustment to unit prices in the Price Matrix will be based ONLY on the difference between these surrogate prices and the actual negotiated unit price for

NC. The USG will also adjust the base quantity awarded prices based on final negotiated NC price for each ordering period.

Please note: If successful, the offeror(s) it will be required to immediately submit a fully adequate and supported, Certified Proposal.

This will allow the root value for NC to be directly adjusted to the current, accurate and complete quotation provided from Radford Army

Ammunition Plant (the only known source for NC within the NTIB) for the initial award and for subsequent exercise of this clause. If the

NC is being procured via a subcontractor, a certified proposal from the subcontractor should be included and clearly identify the cost of NC. The cost of NC must be included the proposal in a manner that can be identified separately from the other cost factors.

*** END OF NARRATIVE I0001 ***

3 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made to up to the two (2) lowest priced technically acceptable offerors. Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability with past performance acceptability but will not be ranked using the non-price Factors (and Subfactors). In order for an

Offeror to be considered for award, the proposal must receive an Acceptable rating in every non-price Factor. A proposal receiving a rating of Unacceptable in any non-price Factor will not be eligible for award. Additionally, any other than small business offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

19.702(a).

The evaluation criteria detailing the Factors and Subfactors are contained in Section M of the RFP and are herein incorporated by full text:

The USG intends to award up to two FFP IDIQ contracts. However, the USG reserves the right to make a single award if determined to be in its best interest. Each IDIQ contract will consist of five, twelve-month ordering periods (60 months total). The number of awards will be based on the USGs requirements and the need to mitigate risk.

Selection of the successful offerors will be made following an assessment of each proposal against the solicitation requirements and the cited evaluation criteria. The criteria will be used to evaluate and assess the information provided by the offerors in response to the information required by Section L of the Solicitation.

The USG will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with Section M.

The MGA per successful awarded contract is $2,500. The initial delivery order, which will consist of the MGA, will be issued concurrently with the IDIQ contract award to each successful offeror. Subsequent delivery orders will be competed between all of the contractors that have been awarded an IDIQ contract for the 60mm (M204, M235, M236), 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and 120mm (M234A1)

Mortar Propelling Charges.

M.1.1. Discussions:

a. Each proposal shall contain the offerors best terms for award of a contract under the solicitation. The USG intends to award up to two contract(s) without discussions. The Contracting Officer may contact offerors for clarification, as described in FAR 15.306(a) and

FAR 52.215.1, without opening discussions. However, the USG reserves the right to conduct discussions and to permit offerors to revise its proposals if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

b. If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary, they will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306.

c. If discussions are to be conducted, the USG shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals. The competitive range shall be determined based on an analysis of each offerors proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria. The

Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the highest rated proposals. If discussions are opened, all offers in the competitive range will be advised of any significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies in their proposal and will be offered a reasonable opportunity to correct or resolve them and to submit a final proposal revision (FPR). At the conclusion of the discussions, a final common cutoff date that allows a reasonable opportunity for submission of written FPRs will be established and all offerors in the competitive range will be notified. The USG reserves the right to establish a new competitive range determination after each re-evaluation if necessary.

M.1.2. Other Evaluation Considerations:

a. Pursuant to FAR 9.103, contracts will only be awarded to offerors that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. Separate from the LPTA source selection criteria, offerors must be able to demonstrate that they meet the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. To assist in the Contracting Officers Determination of Contractor Responsibility, the USG may conduct a pre-award survey on any offerors considered for award.

M.2. Factors:

Awards will be made to the Offerors based on the instructions set forth in Section L, and the evaluation of the factors in accordance with Section M.

If Option 1 DD250 / WAWF Receiving Report is chosen by the Offeror, the award will be based on the following Factors:

Volume 1 Technical (Submission of required data IAW Section L.4.1.1., fulfills Subfactor 1: Production Capability, Subfactor 2: Quality

System, and Subfactor 3: Management System proposal requirements)

4 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Volume 2 Price

Volume 3 Past Performance

If Option 2 Full Proposal is chosen, the award will be based on the following Factors and Subfactors:

Volume 1 - Technical

Subfactor 1: Production Capability

Subfactor 2: Quality System

Subfactor 3: Management System

Volume 2 - Price

Volume 3 - Past Performance

M.3. Evaluation Procedures, Criteria, and Ratings:

Each offeror will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria to determine whether the offeror has the technical expertise, equipment, and personnel required to manufacture and deliver/manage the product in accordance with the delivery schedule as delineated in Section B of the solicitation. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical or contain unbalanced prices that pose an unacceptable risk to the USG may be considered an indication of a lack of understanding of the complexity of the contract requirements and may be determined unacceptable.

First, the total evaluated price will be determined for each Offeror, and the total evaluated prices will be listed from low to high.

The Technical Factor evaluation and Past Performance Factor evaluation will then be conducted on the lowest priced proposal for acceptability. If the lowest priced proposal is determined to be unacceptable, the next lowest proposal will be evaluated for acceptability. This process will continue until a proposal is deemed to have the lowest price and is technically acceptable with an acceptable past performance rating. Each Offerors proposal will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria to determine whether the

Offeror has the technical expertise required to successfully perform these requirements. The USG will assign a rating of Acceptable or

Unacceptable for the Technical and Past Performance Factors. For Option 2 Full Proposal, each Technical subfactor will be evaluated separately and assigned a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Thus, for Option 2 Full Proposal, if an Offeror receives an Unacceptable in any of the Technical Subfactors, it will receive an Unacceptable for the overall Technical Factor and will not further be considered for award. The definition of each rating is below:

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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.4. Faction Evaluation Criteria:

M.4.1. Technical Factor:

The Technical Factor is comprised of three subfactors: (1) Production Capability, (2) Quality System, and (3) Management System.

The USG will evaluate the Technical Factor proposal to determine if the offeror demonstrates a clear understanding and has adequately and completely satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The USG will also evaluate the offerors ability to meet the requirements schedule, based on production rates, and facilities.

The evaluation process will also consider the feasibility of the offerors approach to successfully accomplish the solicitation and the

TDP requirements within the required schedule.

For Option 1 DD250 / WAWF Receiving Report, evaluation will be conducted at the overall Technical Factor level based on the findings.

The USG will assign a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable for the overall Technical Factor.

For Option 2 Full Proposal, evaluation will be conducted at the Subfactor level. The USG will assign a rating of Acceptable or

Unacceptable for each Subfactor. The overall Technical Factor rating will be assigned based on the individual Subfactor ratings and findings.

5 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.4.1.1. Option 1- DD250 / WAWF Receiving Report Technical Factor Evaluation Criteria:

If the Offeror chooses Option 1 DD250 / WAWF Receiving Report for the Technical Factor, evaluation will be conducted at the overall factor level. The USG will assign a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable for the overall Technical Factor. The minimum requirements have been met for the Option 1 DD250 / WAWF Receiving Report proposal approach if the offeror submits at least one authorized DD250 / WAWF

Receiving Report for previous production of the 60mm (M204, M235, M236), or 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), or 120mm (M234A1) Mortar

Propelling Charges in accordance with the following criteria detailed below. NOTE: If at least one authorized DD250 / WAWF Receiving

Report for the Propelling Charges is not submitted, the offeror will need to submit a response in accordance with Option 2 Full

Proposal.

a. The offeror provided at least one adequate authorized DD250 / WAWF Receiving Report for the 60mm (M204, M235, M236), or 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), or120mm (M234A1) Mortar Propelling Charges, as described below:

60mm M204 Mortar Propelling Charge- NSN: 1310-01-050-8896

60mm M235 Mortar Propelling Charge- NSN: 1310-01-568-3208

60mm M236 Mortar Propelling Charge- NSN: 1310-01-566-7489

81mm M218 Mortar Propelling Charge- NSN: 1315-01-290-1598

81mm M219 Mortar Propelling Charge- NSN: 1315-01-290-1597

81mm M220 Mortar Propelling Charge- NSN: 1315-01-329-2575

81mm M658 Mortar Propelling Charge- NSN: 1315-01-673-3487

120mm M234A1 Mortar Propelling Charge- NSN: 1315-01-599-5779

b. The submitted authorized DD250 / WAWF Receiving Report provided is dated within 12 months from the date of issuance of this RFP.

c. The offeror submitted an adequate certification stating that it plans to utilize the same facilities, equipment, and processes for production of these 60mm (M204, M235, M236), 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and 120mm (M234A1) Mortar Propelling Charges that was used in the production of the authorized DD250 / WAWF Receiving Report for the Mortar Propelling Charges. If any exceptions were noted to the certification, the exceptions are described in the response to item (e) below.

d. The offeror submitted an IMS that included CDRL Exhibit A - G, First Article Requirements (including vendor/sub-contractor), equipment prove-out, holiday /maintenance days, and CFM deliveries. IMS adequately identified critical path and long lead purchases.

1. The IMS included and synchronized all significant activities, events, milestones, tests, CDRLs, long lead items, any equipment verifications and qualifications, and any major/key subcontractors' schedules.

2. The IMS adequately illustrated the interdependencies of all significant activities, events, milestones and CDRLs.

3. The IMS adequately identified and described a realistic critical path. A supporting narrative of an analysis of the IMS critical path was provided.

4. The IMS adequately displayed an understanding of the required program events for the manufacture, assembly, inspection, marking, packaging and storage of the 60mm (M204, M235, M236), 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and 120mm (M234A1) Mortar Propelling Charges.

e. The offeror provided a detailed manufacturing process or sequence of operation for the Propellant Charge Establishment/Charge

Uniformity testing required per the TDP. The offeror provided an adequate IMS and demonstrated an understanding and adequate approach of the testing and involved calculation to establish charge weights for new propellant lots in addition to exceptions in paragraph (c).

Additionally, the Offeror provided an adequate and clear description on how it will address any changes to the TDP from the production associated with the DD250 submitted according to Paragraph (a) to the TDP currently being solicited.

f. The Offeror provided an adequate capacity process map for each of the 60mm, 81mm, and 120mm mortar propelling charges. The process map adequately shows each operation in the production process, along with the monthly capacity of each operation. The Offeror included assumptions regarding the capacity including the number of days per month, shifts per day, and operation reliability (i.e., factoring in preventative maintenance downtime, personnel breaks) that are accounted for in the capacity of each operation.

If the authorized DD250 / WAWF Receiving Report and submission/description meets the requirements listed for a. through f. above, the offeror will be determined Acceptable for the Technical Factor and will not require any further proposal submission for the Technical

Factor. Submission of the Price and Past Performance Factors of the proposal are still required.

M.4.1.2. Option 2- Full Proposal Technical Factor and Subfactor Evaluation Criteria:

If the Offeror chooses Option 2 Full Proposal for the Technical Factor, the evaluation will be conducted at the Subfactor level with an overall Technical Factor rating assigned based on the individual Subfactor ratings and findings. The USG will assign a rating of

Acceptable or Unacceptable for each Subfactor. An Unacceptable rating in any Subfactor will result in an overall rating of

Unacceptable.

6 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.4.1.2.1 Option 2- Full Proposal: Subfactor 1: Production Capability

The USG will evaluate the offerors Production Capability Subfactor submission for adequacy and supportability. The USG will evaluate the following areas:

M.4.1.2.1.1. The minimum requirements have been met if the detailed description adequately includes the manufacturing process and a low level process map of the proposed manufacturing processes for both the prime and major/key subcontractors to support the production and delivery of the 60mm (M204, M235, M236), 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and 120mm (M234A1) Mortar Propelling Charges at the minimum monthly production rate of 160,000 60mm (M204, M235, M236), 160,000 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and160,000 120mm (M234A1) Mortar

Propelling Charges, and IAW the requirements of the solicitation. In addition:

a. The minimum requirements have been met if the description and low-level process map adequately include the steps and sequence of operations required for manufacture, assembly, inspection, testing, marking, packaging and storage as well as the sequence of operations for all assemblies, subassemblies and parts. The process map adequately and clearly highlights the bottleneck operations.

b. The minimum requirements have been met if the low level process map adequately includes all inputs and outputs to testing and inspection decision points.

c. The minimum requirements have been met if the description adequately indicates which elements are manufactured in-house, subcontracted, are purchased materials/parts, and identify all of the major/key subcontractors.

d. The minimum requirements have been met if the description adequately identifies and describes both prime and major/key subcontractors essential manufacturing facilities, manufacturing equipment, and tooling used to fulfill the requirements of the TDPs.

e. The minimum requirements have been met if the description adequately identifies and describes both prime and major/key subcontractors essential test facilities and test equipment for this solicitation.

f. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately describes the manufacturing process and defines the approach to concurrently meet the minimum monthly production rate of 160,000 each 60mm (M204, M235, M236), 160,000 each 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and 160,000 each 120mm (M234A1) Mortar Propelling Charges. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately identifies the production capability information, data, schedules/work shift(s), manufacturing and inspection equipment cycle time, to include bottlenecks and planned and unplanned downtimes, as well as the availability, personnel capacity and maximum capacities of the proposed prime and major/key subcontractor facilities, equipment and tooling that clearly demonstrates that the minimum monthly delivery rate 160,000 each 60mm (M204, M235, M236), 160,000 each 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and160,000 each 120mm (M234A1) Mortar Propelling

Charges will be achieved.

g. The minimum requirements have been met if the description adequately includes all appropriate steps and sequence of operations for properly executing the Charge Establishment and Charge Uniformity Test for each propellant lot used in the production of the 60mm (M204, M235, M236), 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and 120mm (M234A1) Mortar Propelling Charges.

M.4.1.2.1.2. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately identifies the maximum monthly production capacity, equipment and tooling for both the prime contractor and major/key subcontractors.

M.4.1.2.1.3. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately identifies the area within the entire manufacturing process that limits manufacturing capacity (i.e. the bottleneck). Additionally, the minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately analyzes the bottleneck impacts and provides an adequate mitigation strategy for the process identified as the bottleneck.

M.4.1.2.1.4. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately provides documentation that it has obtained, or can obtain by date of award, the appropriate safety approvals (including facilities) to handle hazardous materials as required by the solicitation.

The offeror identified whether it has adequate hazardous storage capability. The offeror included copies of Licenses/Certificates for the respective Hazard Classifications or a detailed plan for how these Licenses, Certificates, and Facilities will be obtained.

M.4.1.2.2. Option 2- Full Proposal: Subfactor 2: Quality System

The USG will evaluate the offerors Quality System Subfactor submission for adequacy. The USG will evaluate the following areas:

M.4.1.2.2.1. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately identifies and describes the QMS that will be used to meet the Quality Assurance requirements defined in this solicitation. The description contains sufficient details to demonstrate its suitability for use in producing and controlling the 60mm (M204, M235, M236), 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and 120mm (M234A1) Mortar

Propelling Charges.

M.4.1.2.2.2. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately identifies whether the QMS is certified to, or compliant with Industry Standards such as ISO 9001:2015 or equivalent system acceptable to the USG. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror provides proof of certification. The offeror provides adequate details of the QMS including, at a minimum, how each of the following is utilized and controlled: control of documents/records, internal audits, calibration procedures, internal corrective action

7 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

procedures, control of nonconforming material, and personnel training procedures.

M.4.1.2.2.3. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately describes the process that will be used to flow down all quality requirements to major/key subcontractors and suppliers and adequately describes how this process will be used to verify that there is adequate control of vendor product.

M.4.1.2.2.4. The minimum requirements have been met if the description adequately describes the Quality tools, systems, or any other initiatives to be used to minimize quality problems in support of the solicitation requirements. The description clearly defines an adequate and feasible approach to internal corrective actions to ensure only conforming material is delivered to the USG.

M.4.1.2.2.5. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately details the plan to control the Critical Characteristics in the TDPs, and the offeror provides an adequate control plan that is realistic and supportable. In addition, the minimum requirements have been met if the offerors plan adequately addressed, at a minimum, the following:

a. An adequate lower level process map or flowchart for the overall process.

b. The description adequately identifies the Critical Characteristics and related safety critical processes for the 60mm (M204, M235, M236), 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and 120mm (M234A1) Mortar Propelling Charges.

c. An adequate detailed description of each piece of equipment involved in the inspection and the specific processes for inspection of each Critical Characteristic at both the prime and subcontractor level.

d. An adequate detailed description of the steps listed to prevent a critical defect from occurring, including the identification of the processes and areas that could contribute to a critical non-conformance and how those processes will be controlled.

e. An adequate detailed description of the process to be followed if a critical defect occurs.

M.4.1.2.2.6. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror provided an adequate detailed description which includes all processes to inspect, rework, repair, and scrap to meet quality requirements on all Major and Minor Characteristics.

M.4.1.2.2.7. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately describes in detail the systematic approach (both external and internal) used for non-conforming products, including analysis and steps for identification, segregation, disposition, corrective/preventative action, and failure investigation of non-conforming/suspect material including any problem solving techniques used.

In addition, the minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately describes its use of Failure Mode and Effects Analysis to properly plan for defect prevention and mistake-proofing. Descriptions of any forms, tags, reports such as Material Review Boards, maintenance logs, preventative maintenance schedules, laboratory analysis, environmental factors, training records, and dedicated storage areas used were provided.

M.4.1.2.2.8. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately describes what incoming, in-process, and final inspections shall be performed and how process controls shall be employed. The description adequately includes a description of the AIE or any alternatives to the AIE specified in the TDPs. The offeror provides adequate calibration and maintenance schedules for the AIE.

M.4.1.2.2.9. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately describes in detail its process and methods for implementing continuous improvement measures as they relate to the 60mm (M204, M235, M236), 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and 120mm

(M234A1) Mortar Propelling Charges.

M.4.1.2.3. Option 2- Full Proposal: Subfactor 3: Management System

The USG will evaluate the offerors Management System Subfactor submission for adequacy. The USG will evaluate the following areas:

M.4.1.2.3.1. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror provides an IMS which adequately supports the achievement of FAT into the minimum production rate of 160,000 each 60mm (M204, M235, M236), or 160,000 each 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), or 160,000 each

120mm (M234A1) Mortar Propelling Charges per month.

a. The IMS adequately includes and synchronizes all significant activities, events, milestones, tests, CDRLs, long lead items, any equipment verifications and qualifications, and any major/key subcontractors schedules.

b. The IMS adequately illustrates the interdependencies of all significant activities, events, milestones and CDRLs.

c. The IMS adequately identifies and describes a realistic critical path and provides an adequate supporting narrative of an analysis of the IMS critical path.

d. The IMS adequately displays an understanding of the required program events for the manufacture, assembly, inspection, marking, 8 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

packaging and storage of the 60mm (M204, M235, M236), 81mm (M218, M219, M220, M658), and 120mm (M234A1) Mortar Propelling Charges.

M.4.1.2.3.2. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately describes and identifies its IPT relevant to this solicitation.

a. The description includes an adequate IPT structure, key positions/personnel (Project Manager, Lead Engineer(s), Lead Quality, Contracts Manager, General Manager and/or Vice President), interrelationships, essential skills, and responsibilities to meet the requirements of this solicitation.

b. The description adequately and clearly identifies key positions (Project Manager, Lead Engineer(s), Lead Quality, Contracts Manager, General Manager and/or Vice President), including properly skilled personnel, and the reporting chain in the IPT structure and demonstrates the necessary training and certifications that are required.

M.4.1.2.3.3. The minimum requirements have been met if the offeror adequately identifies key operational personnel in the areas of production and quality including their specific qualifications, years of experience, certifications, and other information relevant to their ability to meet the requirements in this solicitation. If new personnel are required to meet solicitation requirements, the offeror provides an adequate plan on how they will hire/train new personnel.

M.4.2. Price Factor Evaluation

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) price analysis will be used to determine price reasonableness. Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer and may include information/input from other USG agencies.

The USG will evaluate the offerors proposal based on prices proposed in the Price Matrix (Attachment 0001). For each proposal, utilizing prices for all Ordering Periods, the USG will calculate: (1) a CLIN FAT price (as applicable) by averaging the initial FAT prices, (2) a CLIN average Subsequent FAT (SFAT) price (as applicable) by summing all SFAT prices, and (3) a CLIN GPF Rent (as applicable) by summing all GFP Rent prices. The USG will calculate a Weighted Evaluated price by multiplying the proposed unit prices for each range and ordering period by their respective weight and maximum quantity and summing their totals. The weight associated with each range represents the likelihood that an order would be placed within that range. The CLIN Total Evaluated Price is the sum of the

CLIN Evaluated Initial and Subsequent FAT price (where applicable), the GFP Rent and the CLIN Weighted Evaluated Price for all ordering periods. The Total Evaluated Price for all CLINs is the sum of all the CLIN Total Evaluated Prices.

If an offeror fails to propose unit prices and Initial and Subsequent FAT prices (where applicable) for all CLIN quantities and ordering periods, its proposal may be considered unacceptable, and the USG may reject the proposal.

As part of the evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing found between CLINs and/or Ordering

Periods. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), i.e., Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the USG.

USG property (Government-Owned Real Property and Government-Owned Production and Research Property) use evaluation factor shall be calculated by the offeror as required by the provisions contained in Section L of the solicitation. The USG reserves the right to perform its own independent calculation of any rental evaluation factor. For the purpose of identifying the kinds and quantities of property and the rental time, the offeror shall base its estimate on the maximum estimated quantity for all ordering periods for all applicable CLINs.

The USG reserves the right to not award to an offeror should the USG be unable to determine the price fair and reasonable.

M.4.3. Past Performance Factor Evaluation

M.4.3.1. Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The USG will assess the degree of confidence it has that the offeror will successfully complete the requirements in accordance with the contract terms based on the offerors demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance under U.S. Army, USMC, and Foreign Military Sales or other Military contracts.

M.4.3.2. Recent contracts definition: See L.4.3.2.1

M.4.3.3. Relevancy definition: See L.4.3.2.2

M.4.3.4. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the USG may use information obtained from other sources, or may use information with regard to other projects/contracts performed by the offeror which it has knowledge, whether or not those projects/contracts are disclosed to the USG by the offeror.

M.4.3.5. In evaluating performance history, the USG may review the offerors current and prior performance record of complying with all aspects of its contractual agreement, such as but not limited to, quality of performance, products and services; timeliness of performance; operations management; subcontractor management; problem resolution and, if applicable; cost control.

9 10

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.4.3.6. The USG may consider the recency, degree of relevance, source, and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as quality, general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem, problem resolution, or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the assessment process. A negative finding in any element may have an impact on the assessment and the Overall Past Performance Factor rating.

M.4.3.7. The relevancy of the past performance information will be determined as follows:

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same, similar or 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.

M.4.3.8. The recency of the past performance information will be determined as follows:

Recent: Prime contracts, task orders, delivery orders, or subcontracts where services or deliverables were performed within three

(3) years prior to issuance of this RFP. Work performed on multiple orders under the same contract may be submitted as a single contract reference as long as all of the work supports the same program/solution. The USG reserves the right to consider any significant past performance information generated after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

Not Recent: Prime contracts, task orders, delivery orders, or subcontracts where services or deliverables were performed more than three (3) years prior to issuance of this RFP.

M.4.3.9. Offerors Past Performance will be rated as follows:

Acceptable: Based on the offerors performance record, the USG has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offerors performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable: Based on the offerors performance record, the USG does not have an expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history, the offeror will be determined to have unknown (or neutral) past performance and the offerors proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered Acceptable.

The USG is not required to interview all points of contact identified by the offeror. It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by Section L. The USG is not obliged to make another request for the required information.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

10 10

PADDS ERRATA SHEET PAGE

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

DELETED IF60002 52.209-3 01-SEP-1989 FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL -- CONTRACTOR TESTING

DELETED IF60006 52.209-4 01-SEP-1989 FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL -- GOVERNMENT TESTING

W519TC-24-R-0003 0003