B08 - W519TC25R0019-0001.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

Fixed Price with EPA - Actual Costs

0001 2025JUL02

W519TC

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - RI

ROCK ISLAND, IL 61299-8000

JASON O. KOSKI

EMAIL: JASON.O.KOSKI.CIV@ARMY.MIL

W519TC-25-R-0019

2025JUN12

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 17

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: JASON O. KOSKI

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCRI-AMM/(520)693-0224

Type of Contract 1: Fixed Price with EPA - Actual Costs

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of Amendment 0001 to Solicitation W519TC-25-R-0019 is for the following:

1. Provide answers to questions received from Industry. Attachment 0010 in Section J has been added to include questions received from

Industry, along with U.S. Government responses. Attachment 0010 is provided for informational and clarification purposes only and will not be incorporated into any resultant contract from this solicitation.

2. As a result of the Q&A, the following are being updated/revised in the solicitation.

a. Section M.2.1.3 on page 89 has been corrected to Section M.2.1.2.2

b. Section M.2.1.4 on page 90 has been corrected to Section M.2.1.2.3

c. Attachment 0003 Instructions for Form DD1423 is already included as the last page of the CDRLs and has been deleted from the list of attachments in SAM.gov under Contracting Opportunities W519TC-25-R-0019.

As a result of Attachment 0003 Instructions for Form DD1423 being deleted, the following list of Attachments have been updated and renumbered in SAM.gov under Contracting Opportunities W519TC-25-R-0019:

Attachment 0003 CDRL Distribution List of Addresses

Attachment 0004 Guidance on Documentation of CDRLs

Attachment 0005 Small Business Participation Plan

Attachment 0006 Security Statement of Work

Attachment 0007 Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Attachment 0008 OPSEC Sample Acquisition Plan

Attachment 0009 Production Receipt and Shipment Progress Report

3. The Small Business Participation Plan was corrected from Attachment 0006 to Attachment 0005 on the document itself.

4. Drawings for the CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container were inadvertently left off the Solicitation in SAM.gov. Explicit access of the updated drawings may be requested through the "attachments/links" tab in SAM.gov under RFP W519TC-25-R-0019.

5. The anticipated contract will allow for Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) for steel only. Please refer to Section I clause, Economic

Price Adjustment - Steel (Actual Cost) of this amendment for instructions and request information pertaining to EPA.

6. Attachment 0011 EPA Adjustment Worksheet has been added in Section J.

7. Due to the EPA clause being added the U.S. Government intends to award this as Fixed Price with EPA.

8. Due to the change to Fixed Price with EPA contract the following clauses are being added:

DFARS 252.216-7000 "Economic Price Adjustment - Basic Steel, Aluminum, Brass, Bronze, or Copper Mill Products" JAN/2023

DFARS 252.216-7007 "Economic Price Adjustment - Basic Steel, Aluminum, Brass, Bronze, or Copper Mill Products Representation"

MAR/2012

9. Notice to offerors:

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in Proposal Evaluation

Use of AI tools in Support of Evaluations: The Government will employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of offeror proposals. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with request for task order proposal / solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk.

Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgements, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, best value determinations, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed Government personnel. The Government retains sole responsibility for all

2 17

W519TC-25-R-0019

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any AI tool.

Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: The AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. The AI tool will be an output-only system. Any generated report data is not saved. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-

Governmental systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.

10. Due to adding the use of AI tools in the proposal evaluation the follow clause has been added:

DFARS 252.227-7016 "Rights in Bid or Proposal Information" JAN/2023

11. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0002 ***

3 17

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 ADDED 252.227-7016 RIGHTS IN BID OR PROPOSAL INFORMATION (JAN 2023) JAN/2023

I-2 ADDED 252.216-7000 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT--BASIC STEEL, ALUMINUM, BRASS, BRONZE, OR JAN/2023

COPPER MILL PRODUCTS (JAN 2023)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause:

Established price means a price which is an established catalog or market price for a commercial product sold in substantial quantities to the general public.

Unit price excludes any part of the price which reflects requirements for preservation, packaging, and packing beyond standard commercial practice.

(b) As represented by the Contractor in its offer, the unit price stated for ____________________ (Identify the item) is not in excess of the Contractor's established price in effect on the date set for opening of bids (or the contract date if this is a negotiated contract) for like quantities of the same item. This price is the net price after applying any applicable standard trade discounts offered by the Contractor from its catalog, list, or schedule price.

(c) The Contractor shall promptly notify the Contracting Officer of the amount and effective date of each decrease in any established price.

(1) Each corresponding contract unit price shall be decreased by the same percentage that the established price is decreased.

(2) This decrease shall apply to items delivered on or after the effective date of the decrease in the Contractor's established price.

(3) This contract shall be modified accordingly.

(d) If the Contractor's established price is increased after the date set for opening of bids (or the contract date if this is a negotiated contract), upon the Contractor's written request to the Contracting Officer, the corresponding contract unit price shall be increased by the same percentage that the established price is increased, and this contract shall be modified accordingly, provided

(1) The aggregate of the increases in any contract unit price under this contract shall not exceed 10 percent of the original contract unit price;

(2) The increased contract unit price shall be effective on the effective date of the increase in the applicable established price if the Contractor's written request is received by the Contracting Officer within ten days of the change. If it is not, the effective date of the increased unit price shall be the date of receipt of the request by the Contracting Officer; and

(3) The increased contract unit price shall not apply to quantities scheduled for delivery before the effective date of the increased contract unit price unless the Contractor's failure to deliver before that date results from causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, within the meaning of the Default clause of this contract.

(4) The Contracting Officer shall not execute a modification incorporating an increase in a contract unit price under this clause until the increase is verified.

(e) Within 30 days after receipt of the Contractor's written request, the Contracting Officer may cancel, without liability to either party, any portion of the contract affected by the requested increase and not delivered at the time of such cancellation, except as follows

(1) The Contractor may, after that time, deliver any items that were completed or in the process of manufacture at the time of receipt of the cancellation notice, provided the Contractor notifies the Contracting Officer of such items within 10 days after the Contractor receives the cancellation notice.

(2) The Government shall pay for those items at the contract unit price increased to the extent provided by paragraph (d) of this clause.

(3) Any standard steel supply item shall be deemed to be in the process of manufacture when the steel for that item is in the state of processing after the beginning of the furnace melt.

(f) Pending any cancellation of this contract under paragraph (e) of this clause, or if there is no cancellation, the Contractor shall continue deliveries according to the delivery schedule of the contract. The Contractor shall be paid for those deliveries at the contract unit price increased to the extent provided by paragraph (d) of this clause.

4 17

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

(End of clause)

I-125 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT - STEEL (ACTUAL COST)

As prescribed in 16.203-4(c)(2) in lieu of FAR 52.216-4, Economic Price Adjustment - Labor & Material, the following agency prescribed

Economic Price Adjustment applies:

(a) This clause applies to the price for steel only. The amount of any increase or decrease in line item prices will be limited to the price of the actual fluctuation in STEEL only and shall not include such costs as labor, overhead, G&A and profit.

(b) The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer within 30 days after the order for steel has been placed if the price for STEEL either increases or decreases. This notice shall be provided in writing. [For the purpose of defining contract performance each

Delivery Order shall be considered separate contract performance periods.] The notice shall include the Contractor's proposal for an adjustment in the contract unit price to be negotiated under paragraph (c) of this clause, and shall include, in the form required by the Contracting Officer, supporting data explaining the cause, effective date, and amount of the increase or decrease IN THE PRICE OF

STEEL utilized for performance and the amount of the Contractor's proposed line item unit price adjustment based on the fluctuation in

STEEL price.

(c) Promptly after the Contracting Officer receives the notice and data under paragraph (b) of this clause, the Contracting Officer and the Contractor shall negotiate a price adjustment in the contract line item(s) unit price BASED ON THE PRICE fluctuation (INCREASE OR

DECREASE) FOR STEEL and its effective date. However, the Contracting Officer may postpone the negotiations until an accumulation of increases and decreases in the price OF STEEL results in an adjustment allowable under paragraph (d)(3) of this clause. The Contracting

Officer shall modify the contract to include the line item(s) unit price adjustment and its effective date, by revising the line item unit price for the BLU-136/B 2,000 lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly and CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container and identifying the deliverable line item units effected resulting from the increase or decrease resulting from the fluctuation in the PRICE FOR STEEL. The

Contractor shall continue performance pending agreement on, or determination of, any adjustment and its effective date.

(d) Any price adjustment under this clause is subject to the following limitations:

1) Any adjustment shall be limited to the effect on the unit price resulting from the increases or decreases in the price for STEEL.

There shall be no adjustment for:

i) Supplies or services for which the production cost is not affected by such changes;

ii) Changes in line item unit price BASED ON MATERIAL OTHER THAN STEEL; or

iii) Changes in the quantity of STEEL used from that PROPOSED FOR THE production of the BLU-136/B 2,000 lb. High Fragmenting bomb

Assembly and CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container.

2) No upward adjustment shall apply to supplies or services that are required to be delivered or performance before the effective date of the adjustment, unless the Contractor's failure to deliver or perform according to the delivery schedule results from causes beyond the Contractor's control and without its fault or negligence, within the meaning of the Default clause.

3) There shall be no adjustment for any change in the price for STEEL that would not result in a net change of at least 3% of the award unit price for the applicable Delivery Order. The total increase or decrease for any Delivery Order unit price made under this clause shall not exceed 10% of the awarded unit price for the applicable Delivery Order.

4) Any adjustments to a Delivery Order price will only be after the required notification and supporting documentation is provided to the Contracting Officer such as vendor quote, purchase order, invoices, etc. Any agreed upon adjustments will be made through a modification to the Delivery Order.

5) The Contracting Officer may examine the Contractor's books, records, and other supporting data relevant to the cost of labor

(including fringe benefits) and material during all reasonable times until the end of the three years after the date of final payment under this contract, or the time periods specified in Subpart 4.7 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whichever is earlier.

The Contractor shall complete the information below to be used for a baseline throughout the life of the contract to determine necessary adjustments. The Contractor shall use this information to complete the EPA Adjustment Worksheets (Attachment 0011) when a claim is submitted.

PROPOSED POUNDS OF STEEL UTILIZED PER BLU-136/B 2,000 lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly : __________LBS.

UNIT PRICE (PER LB.) FOR STEEL FOR ORDERING PERIOD 2 QUANTITY: $_____________.

UNIT PRICE (PER LB.) FOR STEEL FOR ORDERING PERIOD 3 QUANTITY: $_____________.

UNIT PRICE (PER LB.) FOR STEEL FOR ORDERING PERIOD 4 QUANTITY: $_____________.

UNIT PRICE (PER LB.) FOR STEEL FOR ORDERING PERIOD 5 QUANTITY: $_____________.

5 17

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

PROPOSED POUNDS OF STEEL UTILIZED PER CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container : __________LBS.

UNIT PRICE (PER LB.) FOR STEEL FOR ORDERING PERIOD 2 QUANTITY: $_____________.

UNIT PRICE (PER LB.) FOR STEEL FOR ORDERING PERIOD 3 QUANTITY: $_____________.

UNIT PRICE (PER LB.) FOR STEEL FOR ORDERING PERIOD 4 QUANTITY: $_____________.

UNIT PRICE (PER LB.) FOR STEEL FOR ORDERING PERIOD 5 QUANTITY: $_____________.

6) Offerors shall provide the detailed data required by the EPA clause with the original proposal submission by completing the Price

Matrix included as Attachment 0001. Supporting documentation is also required in the form of a vendor quote, purchase order, invoices, etc. (including any escalation applied by the contractor) to substantiate the prices for steel submitted above. This additional data will not be considered separately in the determination of price reasonableness. This information is used only in the calculation of an applicable EPA request for steel for the Delivery Order quantities awarded.

7) Failure to provide the detailed data required by the EPA clause or the supporting documentation in the form of a vendor quote, purchase order, invoices, etc. will render the contractor ineligible for any upward adjustments to unit prices as a result of an increase in the price for steel.

*** END OF NARRATIVE I0001 ***

6 17

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 0010 BLU-136 INDUSTRY Q&A 30-JUN-2025 001

Attachment 0011 EPA ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET 30-JUN-2025 001

7 17

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION K - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

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

K-1 ADDED 252.216-7007 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT--BASIC STEEL, ALUMINUM, BRASS, BRONZE, OR MAR/2012

COPPER MILL PRODUCTS -- REPRESENTATION

a) Definitions. The terms "established price" and "unit price," as used in this provision, have the meaning given in the clause 252.216-

7000, Economic Price Adjustment--Basic Steel, Aluminum, Brass, Bronze, or Copper Mill Products.

(b) By submission of its offer, the offeror represents that the unit price stated in this offer for ____________________ (Identify the item) is not in excess of the offeror's established price in effect on the date set for opening of bids (or the contract date if this is to be a negotiated contract) for like quantities of the same item. This price is the net price after applying any applicable standard trade discounts offered by the offeror from its catalog, list, or schedule price.

(End of provision)

8 17

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

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

L-1 CHANGED 52.216-1 TYPE OF CONTRACT APR/1984

The Government contemplates award of a Fixed Price with EPA Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract resulting from this solicitation.

(End of Provision)

9 17

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete and thorough explanations for each factor/subfactor submitted as required by

Section L. Each volume, to include all factors/subfactors, shall be submitted with its initial proposal, and the U.S. Government is not obligated to make another request for the required information.

Performance or capabilities proposed above mandatory minimums may be incorporated into the contract IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) 15.306(d)(4). Proposals shall be evaluated only on their content. The U.S. Government will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the Offerors proposal. Evaluators shall not consider or use as a basis for evaluation any assumptions, preconceived ideas, or personal knowledge or opinions not supported by material provided in the proposal, with the exception of the Past

Performance factor. The Past Performance factor evaluators may use personal knowledge or data other than that provided with the Offerors proposal.

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD:

a. The U.S. Government will evaluate proposals submitted in accordance with this section and will make a determination considering the following factors: 1) Technical Ability; 2) Past Performance; 3) Price; and 4) Small Business Participation. Further, within the Technical Ability factor for only Option 2, there are three subfactors that will be evaluated: 1) Manufacturing Capability;

2) Quality; and 3) Testing and Inspection.

b. Best Value Tradeoff procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 will be utilized to select the successful Offeror. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to provide the best value to the U.S. Government considering the evaluation criteria stated herein. The U.S. Government plans to award one FFP, IDIQ contract for the BLU-136/B 2,000 lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly and

CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container that will consist of five, one-year ordering periods.

c. As part of the tradeoff determination, the relative strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies, and risks of each proposal will be considered in selecting the proposal that provides the overall best value to the U.S. Government. The Technical Ability factor will be rated on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis. However, if an Offeror fails to achieve an Acceptable rating for the

Technical Ability factor, either by submitting an approved WAWF document or a full Technical Ability proposal, the Offeror will not be further considered for award.

If an Offeror submits a full Technical Ability proposal in accordance with Section L.4.1.2 Option 2, an overall Technical Rating of Acceptable shall only be given if all three subfactors (Manufacturing Capability, Quality, and Testing and Inspection) receive

Acceptable ratings. If one subfactor receives an Unacceptable rating, the overall Technical Ability factor rating shall be Unacceptable and the Offeror will not be further considered for award.

d. The Past Performance Factor will be rated in an adjectival manner. Price will be evaluated, but not adjectivally rated.

e. Selection of the successful Offeror 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.

f. The U.S. Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with Section M.

M.1.1 Discussions:

Each proposal shall contain the Offerors best terms for award of a contract under the solicitation. The U.S. Government intends to award with discussions (see FAR 52.215-1 Alt 1), but reserves the right to not hold discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the U.S. Government. If discussions are held, they will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306(a). In the event the U.S. Government conducts discussions, the PCO shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals. Only those Offerors within the competitive range will be included in discussions and considered for award.

M.1.2 Other Evaluation Considerations:

Pursuant to FAR 9.103, contracts will only be awarded to Offerors that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. Separate from the best value source selection criteria, Offerors must be able to demonstrate that it meets meet the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. The U.S. Government may conduct a pre-award survey on any Offerors considered for award, to assist in the

Contracting Officers determination of Contractor responsibility.

M.1.3 Order of Importance:

Technical Ability factor will be rated as Acceptable / Unacceptable. However, if an Offeror fails to achieve an Acceptable rating for

10 17

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

the Technical Ability factor, as outlined above, the Offeror shall not be further considered for award.

Once it has been determined that an Offeror has received an Acceptable overall rating for the Technical Ability factor, the Past

Performance factor becomes the most important factor in determining the trade-off. Past Performance factor is more important than Price factor. Price factor is more important than Small Business Participation factor. The evaluation factors other than Price, when combined are significantly more important than Price. Although price is not the most important factor, it could become a controlling factor if proposals under the non-price factors are determined to be relatively equal.

An Offeror who receives an Unacceptable rating in Technical Ability factor or No Confidence rating in Past Performance factor will not be considered for award.

M.2 EVALUATION 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 is chosen by the Offeror, the award will be based on the following factors:

Volume I Technical Ability

Volume II Past Performance

Volume III Price

Volume IV Small Business Participation

If Option 2 is chosen by the Offeror, the award will be based on the following:

Volume I Technical Ability

Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Capability

Subfactor 2: Quality

Subfactor 3: Testing and Inspection

Volume II Past Performance

Volume III Price

Volume IV Small Business Participation

M.2.1 VOLUME I TECHNICAL ABILITY FACTOR

M.2.1.1 Option 1 - Technical Ability Factor Evaluation Criteria

If Option 1 was chosen for the Technical Ability Factor for either of the components, evaluations of that/those components will be conducted at the factor level. The U.S. Government will assign a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable for the overall factor.

Technical Ability Factor Rating Definitions:

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The minimum requirements have been met for the Option 1 proposal approach if the Offeror submits a WAWF acceptance document for the previous production of BLU-136/B 2,000lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly and/or the CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container, in accordance with the criteria below:

a. The Offeror provided an adequate WAWF acceptance document for the BLU-136/B 2,000lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly (NSN:

1325-01-674-1609) and/or the CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container (NSN: 8140-01-252-7060), as described in the following drawings:

i. BLU-136/B 2,000lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly Data List (DL) 20199360-10, Revision E

ii. CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container DL 8463244-10, Revision K

b. The WAWF document(s) provided is/are dated within one year from the date of issuance of this RFP.

c. The Offeror submitted an adequate statement verifying that it plans to utilize the same facilities, equipment, and processes for production of these components as was used in the production of the components in the WAWF document. If the components were previously subcontracted to another supplier, the Offeror adequately identified who the subcontractor was and submitted an adequate statement verifying that the same subcontractor, facilities, equipment, and process will be used by this subcontractor as previously used for production of these components as was used in the production of the components in the WAWF document. Any exceptions to this certification were described in detail.

d. The Offeror provided an adequate detailed schedule which included: the CDRLs identified in Exhibit A CDRL BLU-136/B 2,000lb.

11 17

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly, and/or in Exhibit B CDRL CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container, in Section J of the solicitation;

First Article requirements (including vendor/subcontractor); equipment prove-out, holiday / maintenance days; and supplier deliveries.

The schedule also adequately identified the critical path and long lead purchases. The Offeror accurately used 24 March 2026 as the contract award date.

e. If applicable, the Offeror adequately described any changes to its facility, process, inspection, equipment modifications, quality control, etc. from what was previously used.

M.2.1.2 - Option 2 - Technical Ability Factor and Subfactor Proposal Requirements

In Option 2, the U.S. Government will evaluate the Technical Ability factor at the subfactor level, with an overall Technical Ability factor rating assigned based on the individual subfactor ratings and findings. The U.S. Government will assign a rating of Acceptable or

Unacceptable for all the subfactors. An Unacceptable rating for any subfactor will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable for the

Technical Ability factor. An Acceptable rating for all subfactors will result in an overall rating of Acceptable for the Technical

Ability factor.

Technical Ability Factor Rating Definitions:

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The following definitions apply to the evaluation of the Offerors Technical Ability factor (and subfactors) as follows:

a. Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer 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).

b. Deficiency is 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.

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

The Technical Ability subfactors in which the U.S. Government will evaluate are as follows:

Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Capability

Subfactor 2: Quality

Subfactor 3: Testing and Inspection

M.2.1.2.1 Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Capability

If Option 2 was chosen for the Technical Ability factor and subfactors, the Offeror will be evaluated on the detailed description of its manufacturing capability to produce the BLU-136/B 2,000lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly and the CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage

Container in accordance with the TDPs and solicitation requirements. All subcontracted work described by the Offeror will be evaluated to the same extent as the Offerors. The Offerors Manufacturing Capability subfactor proposal will be evaluated on the following essential elements:

1. The Offeror provided an adequately detailed description of the proposed manufacturing plan in regards to producing BLU-136/B

2,000lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly and / or CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container IAW the respective TDPs. The manufacturing plan adequately included a detailed description of the proposed facilities, necessary equipment and tooling, workforce with essential skills (technical staff, experienced engineers, etc.), and demonstration of capability. The Offeror provided adequate process flow diagrams for the entire manufacturing processes to meet the TDPs and solicitation requirements. For any manufacturing processes or components proposed to be subcontracted, the manufacturing plan adequately identified the name(s) of the proposed subcontractor(s) and defined all work to be accomplished at the subcontractors facility to the same level of detail as the Offerors plan. The proposed manufacturing plan included adequate detailed descriptions of the following:

a. The assembly sequence and anticipated manufacturing and inspection process of the base structure weldment of the inner tube, nose, and tail IAW Drawing 20199380, Body Assembly, Base Structure.

b. The assembly sequence and anticipated manufacturing process of the resin molded fragment packs IAW Drawing 20199393 (Nose

Fragment Pack, Preformed), and Drawing 20199373 (Fragment Pack cylindrical, Sectioned).

c. The manufacturing build schedule, including equipment/tooling setup and proofing, supplier deliveries, required CDRLs submissions and approvals, First Article Inspection requirements (including vendor/subcontractor), fabrication and assembly. The Offeror correctly used a contract award date of 24 March 2026.

d. Facility, equipment, and process flow diagram to support the delivery quantities requested.

12 17

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

e. Plans to provide the needed manpower, to include qualified welders and inspectors.

f. Surface Treatment application and testing.

g. Final assembly.

2. The Offeror provided an adequately detailed description of the Offerors proposed supplier management in regards to producing the BLU-136/B 2,000lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly and / or CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container IAW their respective TDPs, to include:

a. Approach to selecting and managing suppliers to include source of steel, welding consumables, resin, fragments, internal components, and common MK 84 components IAW the TDP.

b. Acceptance of steel material IAW the TDPs.

c. An adequately detailed description of supply chain issues that may affect Manufacturing Capabilities, Production Rate

Capabilities and Program Schedules. The Offeror provided adequately detailed risk mitigation strategies and plans, including mitigation actions, implementation plan, and risk monitoring for these processes. The Offeror adequately focused on any anticipated supply chain constraints impacting the critical path of the schedule, including long lead time parts/materials.

3. The Offeror provided an adequately detailed description of the Offerors fabrication experience IAW AWS D17.1 Class A and B welding inspection, and training and qualification, to include:

a. Welding IAW AWS D17.1 Class A and B: The Offeror adequately demonstrated/described experience developing and verifying conformance of internal PQRs and WPS for fabrication of items comparable in size and complexity to the BLU-136/B IAW the TDP. If proposing to use a subcontractor for weldment, the Offeror adequately demonstrated/described its experience collaborating with the subcontractor on process development and verifying conformance of the subcontractors PQRs and WPS for fabrication of comparable items.

The Offeror adequately described how that experience is comparable to the fabrication of the BLU-136/B.

b. Inspection IAW AWS D17.1 Class A and B: The Offeror adequately demonstrated/described experience with inspection methods, to include visual weld inspection, MT and UT, on welds comparable in size and complexity to the BLU-136/B IAW the TDP. If proposing to use a subcontractor, the Offeror adequately demonstrated/described experience integrating the subcontractors inspection methods in fabrication of welded items. The Offeror adequately described how the experience is comparable to the inspection of the BLU-136/B IAW the TDP.

c. Training and Qualification IAW AWS D17.1 Class A and B: The Offeror provided an adequately detailed description of the process for training and certifying: a) welders and/or welding operators, b) visual weld inspectors IAW AWS D17.1 Section 7.1.2, and c)

NDT personnel IAW NAS 410. If proposing to use a subcontractor for welding, visual weld inspection or NDT, the Offeror adequately described its subcontractors training and certification process to the required standards and how the Offeror ensures continued adherence to the process.

d. Resin Molding of Metal Fragments: The Offeror adequately described/demonstrated experience with developing and implementing serial production of resin molded products, to include composite assemblies with metal components. The Offeror adequately described its experience developing process parameters for cure times and temperatures, assembling metal components and/or fragments into molds, and maintaining mass and dimensional properties for the end product. If proposing to use a subcontractor, the Offeror adequately described its subcontractors experience with process development of resin molded products with metal components and verification of mass and dimensional property conformance in serial production. The Offeror adequately demonstrated/described its experience collaborating with the aforementioned subcontractor, or proposed collaboration process, on its fabrication of comparable items and adequately identified how that experience is comparable to the fabrication of the BLU-136/B fragment packs.

e. Manufacturing Rounded Metal Cubes: The Offeror adequately demonstrated/described experience with fabrication of rounded metal cubes to include maintaining weight and shape tolerances with items comparable in size and complexity IAW the BLU-136/B TDP. If proposing to use a subcontractor, the Offeror adequately described its experience collaborating with the subcontractor on process development and verifying conformance of the subcontractors ability to maintain specified tolerances in fabrication of comparable items.

The Offeror adequately described how the experience is comparable to the fabrication of the fragments IAW the BLU-136/B TDP.

4. The Offeror provided an adequate MRA using the criteria and process identified in the DoD MRL Deskbook (available at

"http://www.dodmrl.org/ ") and adequately reported a current MRL in producing the BLU-136/B 2,000lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly and

CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container. The Offeror adequately addressed risks identified in the MRA, against the MRL criteria, will be managed to ensure that the MRL can be increased to a minimum level of 8, before FAT is completed.

M.2.1.2.2 - Subfactor 2 - Quality:

The Offerors Quality subfactor will be evaluated on the adequacy of its detailed description of its proposed approach for the

13 17

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

performance of quality assurance for BLU-136/B 2,000lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly and CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container to meet the TDPs and solicitation requirements. The Offerors Quality subfactor proposal adequately included the details below:

a. The Offeror provided adequate objective evidence that its QMS adequately complies with AS9100 or ISO 9001:2015, with only design/development exclusions permitted. If the use of an alternate program/system was proposed, the Offerors description adequately demonstrated how the alternate system is equivalent to AS9100 or ISO 9001:2015 requirements. The Offeror provided an adequate description of detailed resources necessary for implementing its QMS to meet the solicitation quality requirements.

b. The Offeror provided an adequately detailed description of the QMS to address the following key AS9100 or ISO 9001:2015 elements:

i. Evidence of how top management demonstrates leadership and commitment with respect to the QMS

ii. Description or chart of the Offeror's quality management structure and responsibilities within the organizational structure

iii. Evidence of methods to analyze and resolve quality problems when a nonconformity occurs

iv. Evidence of the Offeror's commitment to continual improvement

c. The Offeror provided an adequate description of its proposed process control system to mitigate/prevent non-conformances and reduce variation in processes affecting characteristics classified as Major or Critical for the BLU-136/B 2,000lb. High Fragmenting Bomb

Assembly and / or CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container. The Offeror provided an adequately detailed description of methods to identify and assess process risks for process control characteristics and how the Offeror proposes to review all process and operation parameters for possible application of process control techniques for the BLU-136/B 2,000lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly and / or CNU-

417/E Shipping and Storage Container. The Offeror adequately described procedures for the handling of non-conforming material, rework, and repair parts for prime and subcontractor facilities.

d. The Offeror provided an adequate description of its proposed supplier management program that demonstrated the ability to evaluate, certify/qualify, manage, audit, and flow-down relevant requirements to control supplier quality, product, and processes to meet the TDP and solicitation requirements. The Offeror provided an adequately detailed description of its processes for receiving incoming raw material/component parts, segregating non-conforming material from suppliers, and processes for supplier corrective actions.

e. The Offerors provided an adequately detailed description of its procedures for identification, control, correction, and resolution of deficiencies identified in components, assemblies, and the end item for both prime, and subcontractor facilities. The

Offeror's detailed description adequately addressed its approach for conducting failure analysis including methodologies for root cause analysis and corrective action.

M.2.1.2.3 - Subfactor 3 - Testing and Inspection:

Offeror provided an adequately detailed description of its proposed approach for the performance of Testing and Inspection for the BLU-

136/B 2,000lb. High Fragmenting Bomb Assembly, Subassemblies, Components, and / or CNU-417/E Shipping and Storage Container that met the

TDP and solicitation requirements. The Offerors Testing and Inspection subfactor proposal adequately included the following:

a. The Offeror provided an adequately detailed description of the capability of its proposed inspection and testing processes and necessary inspection equipment, methods, procedures, and personnel to demonstrate compliance with all requirements identified in the

TDPs, QAPs, and this solicitation. The Offerors detailed description adequately demonstrated its understanding and capability of its dimensional inspection, non-destructive inspection, explosive testing, and mass property testing to meet the sampling requirements as part of FAT and LAT.

b. The Offeror provided an adequately detailed description of its testing and inspection capacities, risks to these capacities, and proposed risk mitigation strategies to ensure each process maintains greater capacity than the demand placed upon that process during testing and inspection, in order to meet the MGQ requirements within the required timeframe.

c. The Offeror provided an adequately detailed description of the proposed calibration system addressing measurement standards, traceability, certifications, and test equipment to demonstrate compliance with ISO 10012, ISO 17025, or ANSI/NCSL Z540.3.

M.2.2 VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

a. Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The U.S. Government 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 Offeror's demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance on previous contracts.

b. The U.S. Government may consider the recency, degree of relevance, source, and context of the past performance information it

14 17

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

evaluates as well as general trends in delivery and quality performance.

c. 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 result in a lower past performance confidence assessment rating.

d. If absent any recent and relevant past performance history, the Offeror will be assigned a Neutral rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

e. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the U.S. Government may use information obtained from other sources, or may use information with regard to other contracts performed by the Offeror of which it has knowledge, whether or not those contracts are disclosed to the U.S. Government by the Offeror.

f. Adverse performance shall be identified on every recent and relevant contract awarded to the Offeror and subcontractors that encountered any performance problems. If there are no contracts with performance problems, the Offeror must state as such. Failure to include this information or a statement may be a cause for rejection of an Offerors proposal as incomplete.

M.2.2.1 Recent:

Recent contracts are defined as prime contracts, task orders, delivery orders or subcontracts where services or deliverables were performed, or are still being performed, anytime within three years of issuance of this solicitation. The U.S. Government reserves the right to consider any significant past performance information that is recent and relevant after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

M.2.2.2 Relevancy Ratings:

Relevant means performance that demonstrates that the Offeror has performed on contracts involving quality assurances and manufacturing processes that are the same or similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude as described in the solicitation, in accordance with the TDP and solicitation requirements.

The degree to which the contracts are comparable with regard to the complexity, size of the production quantities, and total dollar value to the solicited effort may also be considered in determining relevance.

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

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.

M.2.2.3. Confidence Past Performance Ratings:

Offerors recent and relevant past performance will be rated as follows:

Substantial Confidence: Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. Government has no expectation that the

15 17

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE: The U.S. Government advises Offerors that while an Offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for having

Neutral Confidence past performance, that Neutral Confidence rating may be considered during a trade-off analysis with other Offerors who have a performance rating other than Neutral Confidence.