Attachment_0018_revised_sections_L_and_M.pdf

Proposal Instructions – Section L

L.1. PROPOSALS: Proposals shall be submitted electronically in accordance with this section. Proposals should be specific, complete, and address each of the below designated factors. Failure to provide the required supporting documentation may result in your offer being rejected.

The proposal submission shall consist of the following volumes/subvolumes: Volume I – Technical

A. Manufacturing Plan B. Quality and Critical Safety Characteristics Plan

Volume II – Past Performance

A. Quality B. Relevance

Volume III – Price

Volume IV – Small Business Participation

Proposals must not merely repeat the solicitation requirements, but rather must provide convincing documentary evidence of how contract requirements will be met.

The proposal shall consist of the following:

(1) One (1) signed and completed copy of the attached Standard Form 33 (SF 33) and continuation sheets (Sections A through M) signed by a person authorized to enter into the proposed contract on behalf of the offeror. Acknowledgement of all amendments to the solicitation and all continuation sheets to be filled in as directed (i.e., proposed prices in Section B/Pricing Matrix, any fill-in required, such as Contract Data Requirements List (DD Form 1423 with Blocks 17 and 18 completed), and Certifications and Representations in Section K. Offerors are directed to thoroughly read the solicitation and fill in the required information in the appropriate solicitation clauses. For any fill-ins not applicable, the offeror must acknowledge by indicating “N/A”. The offeror must also include, in his/her proposal, the computation for use of Government-Owned Production and Research Property, if applicable (FAR clause 52.245-4006, Submission Requirements for Government Owned Property).

(2) Volume I – Technical Proposal - Total maximum of 65 pages for Volume I, to be allocated among the following:

(A) Manufacturing Plan Sub-Volume

(B) Quality and Critical Safety Characteristics Plan Sub-Volume

(3) Volume II – Past Performance Proposal - No more than three (3) references to be provided. Total maximum of 10 pages for Volume II, to be allocated between the following):

(A) Quality Sub-Volume

(B) Relevance Sub-Volume

(4) Volume III – Price Proposal

(5) Volume IV – Small Business Participation Factor - Total maximum of 10 pages for Volume IV.

Proposals shall be submitted in Arial 10 pt. font with 1 inch margins on all sides. The offeror shall include its company name and page numbers on all documents of its proposal.

Each part shall be as brief as possible, consistent with complete submission and shall not exceed the maximum of 85 pages per the breakout listed above. The page count will be made by counting the pages from left to right, consecutively. Pages that exceed the page limitation will not be evaluated. Annexes, documentation, and attachments that are submitted by the offeror will count against the page limitations. If pages are printed on both sides, each side will count as a separate page. The following will not count against page limitations: Volume title pages, table of contents pages, cross-referencing pages, acronym lists, and page dividers (used to separate proposal sections).

Pages shall not exceed 8-1/2 inches in width by 11 inches in length; foldout pages depicting such items as sketches, factory floor layouts, etc. may exceed the size limitations, with each fold counted as one page.

Complete proposals will be submitted to Army Contracting Command – Rock Island (ACC-RI) at the following:

Chet A. Jacks, CCRC-AC chet.a.jacks.civ@mail.mil and

Barbara J. Voss, CCRC-AC barbara.j.voss2.civ@mail.mil

Offerors are cautioned to allow sufficient time for submission. All submissions that are received after the closing date and time listed will be considered late and will not be considered for award. The Government will not accept any changes, additions, or deletions after the closing time. Should an offeror have difficulties with delivery of proposals, they should immediately notify Mr. Jacks at chet.a.jacks.civ@mail.mil. The proposals shall clearly and convincingly communicate the capability of the offeror to perform the work as required.

Statements that merely repeat the solicitation requirements are unacceptable. Proposals which do not contain the information requested risk rejection by the Government. It is the offeror’s responsibility to provide complete and comprehensive responses to each volume and sub volume. The Government intends to award without discussions (see FAR 52.215-1);

consequently, it is your responsibility to submit a proposal that conforms to all of the terms and conditions of the solicitation and this section and contains your best offer.

L.2. VOLUME I – TECHNICAL:

This volume shall be limited to 65 pages, excluding Volume title pages, table of contents pages, cross-referencing pages, acronym lists, and page dividers (used to separate proposal sections). The Technical factor consists of the following two (2) subfactors: (A) Manufacturing Plan, (B) Quality and Critical Safety Characteristics Plan.

L.2.1. Manufacturing Plan

The offeror shall provide an individual Manufacturing Plan for the M28B2 Primer in order to meet the requirements of the Solicitation. This Plan shall include a description of the essential manufacturing facilities, equipment, processes and skills. The Plan must be realistic, achievable and supportable. Proposals will address, as a minimum, the following:

a. A detailed description and process map of the proposed manufacturing processes and the steps required for its manufacture, assembly, inspection, test, marking and packaging as well as sequence of operations for all assemblies, subassemblies and parts. This description should indicate which elements will be manufactured in-house, which will be sub-contracted, or purchased material / parts.

b. Identification of both prime and key subcontractor’s essential manufacturing and test facilities, manufacturing and test equipment, and tooling. Provide your monthly maximum capacity based upon a single shift without additional facilities, equipment and tooling. Explain how both prime and sub-contractor would meet the proposed maximum capacity monthly production rates, and how the facilities, equipment and tooling will perform over the life of the contract.

c. Identification of essential skills required and their availability. Provide a description of training and certification, if applicable, and a plan to maintain or update any required training or certifications over the life of the contract.

d. Identification of all “Critical Process Areas” and describe the process controls, and equipment maintenance plans which will be used in the manufacture of the individual component or components that the offeror is proposing.

e. A description of the process for insertion of new, state-of-the-art advanced or alternate technology or process improvements. Technology Insertions may be the result of Engineering Change Proposals or of solving producibility problems that provide technology advances which result in improving product safety, reliability, or performance.

L.2.2. Quality Assurance and Critical Safety Characteristics Plan

The offeror shall provide a detailed Quality Assurance and Critical Safety Characteristics Plan that will describe the approach for meeting the Quality Assurance requirements as defined below. The offeror shall describe in detail the Quality Management System that is planned to be used for each individual component or components. The offeror shall provide as a minimum in its plan:

a. Identification of each Critical Safety Characteristic and associated manufacturing process to include each piece of equipment involved in its fabrication, assembly, inspection and test and specific process for inspection of each critical safety characteristic. The approach to control the process and system to notify of non-compliance of the Critical Safety Characteristics Plan shall be indicated. Identification of the Critical Safety Characteristics and associated processes must include those at the subcontractor level.

b. Identification of the Quality Management System and whether or not it is certified to or compliant with Industry Standards such as ISO 9001, or equivalent system. Describe the system in sufficient detail to determine its suitability for use in performing the resulting contract particularly if it is a unique system. Describe the approach to document and control the manufacturing processes with respect to its impact on performance, safety, and storage life expectancy. Provide proof of certification.

c. Description of the Quality system for incoming inspection, fabrication, assembly, inspection, test, packaging, marking and shipping of the individual component or components. Describe the process that will be used to flow-down all quality requirements to subcontractors and how it will be used to verify adequate control of vendor product to meet specified requirements. Describe how the quality system described relates to the quality plan for the individual component or components.

d. Description of proposed identification, inspection, and prevention and control of critical performance processes. These shall be addressed along with the identification of the associated production and test equipment, and the approach to identify the source of variation and improve and control the process. Critical performance processes are those processes that could result in loss of performance, test failures, or reduced reliability.

e. Description of the process for identifying, segregating and disposition of non-conforming material as well as the process for analyzing and failure investigation of non-conforming material. These details should include description of any forms, tags, reports, committees and special storage areas for non-conforming material as well as the procedure for line stoppage, Government notification and restart.

f. Identification of Quality tools and systems to be used such as statistical process control (SPC), material review boards, equipment calibration process, incoming material control, Failure Reporting Analysis and Corrective Action System (FRACAS), defect prevention plan, continuous quality improvement, failure analysis, and root cause analysis. Offeror shall also identify any initiatives to be used to minimize quality problems.

L.3. VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE:

L.3.1. Recent, relevant past performance will be used as an indicator of the offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. For the purpose of submitting proposals, “recent” is defined as occurring approximately within the past three (3) years prior to this solicitation’s initial closing date. “Relevant” is defined as same or similar actions in terms of size, complexity, scope, and contract type performed under previously awarded contracts. Offerors shall provide a brief narrative explanation of how/why it believes its past performance is relevant; the Government reserves the right to determine whether an item/service is the same or similar. The offeror will also provide any records from previous customers relating to its performance.

Sources available to the Government, other than the offeror’s proposal, may be used to evaluate past performance. Sources such as, but not limited to, contracting and pre-award offices at other Government and/or Military locations may be used to gather information. The Government has the right to consider information regarding contractor performance up to the date of award. The normal method the Government uses to investigate past performance is to read the questionnaires submitted by the offerors and, if it chooses, to interview the points of contact provided by offerors and to consult the Government’s past performance information database. The Government does not assume a duty to conduct deeper investigations, but reserves the right to do so if it chooses. The Government will consider only objective evidence of past performance, not rumors or unsubstantiated assertions. The Government will read past performance information submitted by offerors and attempt to verify it using the methods indicated in this paragraph.

This factor will be evaluated on an assessment of the probability that the instant requirements will successfully be completed in accordance with the contract terms. Ratings will be assigned and defined in Section M of this solicitation.

L.3.1.1. Past Performance Proposal. The Government shall utilize the Past Performance subfactors Quality and Relevance to determine if the offeror has the past performance to provide this requirement. In addition, the following information must be submitted in order to validate past performance on the subfactors. The offeror shall provide documentation outlining its past performance with a list of three (3) contracts within the past three (3) years, as a prime or major subcontractor, which are the same or similar in size, complexity, and scope to the requirements being procured under this solicitation. In accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.305(2)(ii), the offeror may use past or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and private) for efforts that are same or similar to the requirement. The offeror’s past performance documentation shall include as a minimum the following information:

customer satisfaction questionnaire, safety history, loss and damage history, personnel and equipment, cost performance/cost control, schedule performance and performance under adverse conditions. The following documentation shall be submitted for each contract/project cited:

1) Contract number, Award Date and Contract Type

2) Price/Cost Original Awarded and final (or projected final if contract is current)

3) Period of Performance

4) Name, telephone number, fax number and email address for the following: Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO); Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO); Government technical point of contact (Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)) or Commercial Technical Representative.

5) A narrative description of each contract listed describing the objectives achieved.

6) A copy of any cure notices, letters of concern, corrective action requests, or show cause letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action by the offeror or proposed subcontractor.

7) The offeror shall provide the required information concerning termination actions for all contracts it has had for the past three (3) years and any currently in the process of such termination. The offeror shall provide information as to why the termination occurred, as well as Contract Number, Price/Cost Original Award and Final, Period of Performance, Name and email for the PCO, ACO, COR, and a copy of any cure notices or show cause letters received on each terminated contract.

L.3.1.2. Past Performance Questionnaires: For all recent and relevant contracts identified, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and email the questionnaire to its customer representative responsible for that past/current contract. The customer representatives shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and email the entire completed questionnaire to the Contract Specialist, Mr. Chet A. Jacks at email: chet.a.jacks.civ@mail.mil prior to the solicitation closing date and time as specified. Untimely submitted questionnaires will not be considered.

The offeror is reminded that both independent data and data provided by the offeror in its proposal may be used by the Government to evaluate past performance. In addition to the data provided by the offeror, the Government may utilize the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), information provided by references, and any other information available to determine the quality and relevance of the offeror’s past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current information as requested in this paragraph and within the solicitation remains with the offeror. Proposals that do not contain the information requested within this solicitation risk rejection or a less than acceptable performance rating by the Government. In the event that an offeror has no past performance history, e.g. a new firm, the offeror may submit past performance information for key personnel probable to perform the contract requirements.

Subfactor 2.1: Quality:

Offerors must provide information on recent and relevant past performance in the area of quality assurance, including quality assurance standards applied on recent and relevant past contracts, timeliness and adherence to delivery schedule. Through the offeror’s past performance information, the offeror shall detail how it has handled schedule slippages (if applicable) and the corrective action taken to assure additional slippages in schedule did not occur. Finally, the offeror must provide sufficient past performance details to support the timeliness to produce required deliverables and reports. The offeror must submit data explaining corrective actions that have been taken to improve its process and/or solve its quality problems. The offeror must disclose information about previous Quality Deficiency Reports (QDRs) and other quality related problems. The offeror’s submissions must be clear and concise when describing the deficiency, stating corrective action and when it was implemented. The offeror must include in its proposal its past performance in regards to maintaining a quality control checklist as well as a customer feedback system.

Subfactor 2.2: Relevance:

Offerors must provide information regarding recent past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to this requirement. Offerors must provide information regarding those aspect of the offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement.

L.4. VOLUME III – PRICE:

L.4.1. The offeror shall submit Firm Fixed Unit Pricing for all quantities for all five (5) Ordering Periods and First Article Test costs on the Price Evaluation Spreadsheet, Attachment 0001. All unit prices will be binding. Volume discount pricing or price breaks should be noted by the offeror. Proposed unit prices are limited to two decimal places. Failure to provide firm fixed prices for all CLINs in the Pricing Matrix is unacceptable and could render the offeror ineligible for award.

L.4.2. Offerors are encouraged to submit accompanying written explanations, as deemed necessary, in order to enable the Government to understand the basis for prices that might otherwise seem unreasonable or incomplete. Offerors are cautioned against placing conditions or qualifications upon its price proposals that are contrary to or otherwise attempt to amend the requirements of the solicitation; doing so may result in an offer being deemed unacceptable for further consideration of award.

L.4.3. Cost/Pricing Data Requirements. The Government anticipates receiving competitive proposals and using competition to determine price reasonableness. However, unless an exception to FAR Subpart 15.403-1 applies, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data and/or information other than cost or pricing data to establish the reasonableness of the proposed contract and/or subcontract prices after receipt of proposals. Accordingly, if the Government notifies the offeror that cost or pricing data is required, the offeror shall prepare and submit cost or pricing data with supporting documentation. Cost or pricing data must be submitted in accordance with instructions specified at FAR 15.403-5 and Table 15.2, FAR

15.408. If applicable, as soon as practicable after negotiating an agreement on price, but before contract award, the offeror shall submit a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data as prescribed by FAR 15.406-2. Offerors should review FAR clause 52.215-20 for additional information on exceptions.

L.4.4. The price proposal shall consist of an electronic copy of the completed Price Matrix which shall be submitted to Mr. Chet Jacks and Ms. Barbara Voss.

L.4.5. Use of Government-Owned Real Property & Government-Owned Production and Research Property. In accordance with FAR 45.202(a), the Government shall consider any potentially unfair competitive advantage that may result from an offeror possessing Government- Owned Real Property and Government-Owned Production and Research Property. To eliminate the competitive advantage, a rental equivalent evaluation factor shall be added to each offer which is predicated on the use of the above detailed existing Government production and research property.

If the offeror plans to use any item of Government-Owned Real Property and Government- Owned Production and Research Property in possession of the offeror or his proposed subcontractors under a facilities contract or other agreement with the Government independent of this solicitation, the offeror shall so indicate by checking the applicable box(es) below and by identifying such facilities contract or other agreement under which the property is held.

Offer is predicated on use of Government-Owned Real Property and Government-Owned Production and Research Property in Offeror’s possession.

Offer is predicated on use of Government-Owned Real Property and Government-Owned Production and Research Property in Offeror’s subcontractor’s or vendor’s possession.

Identification of facilities contract or other agreement under which such property is held:

Type of Contract or Agreement:

Name and Date:

Cognizant Government Agency (including address):

The offeror is required to submit the following with his offer (including prospective subcontractors):

The information required under Paragraph (c) of Section L clause 52.245-9100, entitled "Submission Requirements For Use of Government-Owned Property" if the offeror plans to use any item of Government Property, to include real property, in the possession of the offeror or its proposed subcontracts under any contract or agreement independent of this solicitation. For the purpose of identifying the kinds and quantities of property and the rental time, the offeror shall base the production period on the maximum range quantity for Ordering Period 1. Although FAR 52.245-9(e) and the clause located in Section L entitled “Submission Requirements for Use of Government-owned Property” require the offeror to calculate the rental evaluation factor, the Government reserves the right, if it so choose, to perform its own independent calculation of any rental evaluation factor.

L.5. VOLUME IV – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION:

Offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 for each proposal submitted. Electronic Small Business Subcontracting Plan are required per proposal. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed in accordance with AFARS 5119.705-4. Failure to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan for each proposal submitted may result in a determination that the offeror is non-responsible. The requirement to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan does not apply to small business concerns.

L.5.1. As required by DFARS 215.304, Small Business Participation is an evaluation factor in this acquisition. To meet the requirements under this factor, offerors shall address two areas in its Small Business Participation proposal: (1) “Proposed” Small Business Participation in performance of the potential contract; and (2) “Past” Small Business Participation in contract performance (Realism).

1. Proposed Small Business Participation.

a. All offerors are required to identify the extent to which the following types of small businesses will participate in the contract: Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB).

b. For SBs, as identified by the size standard for the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code applicable to this solicitation, the offeror's own participation as a SB shall be identified in the Contract Participation Matrix and will be considered in evaluating small business participation.

c. Contract Participation Matrix (Attachment 0017 in Section J) - All offerors shall provide in the Contract Participation Matrix full company name, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, SB type(s), principal NAICS code for the majority of the work to be performed by the participant, product or service description, and the estimated dollar value for each participant in the proposed contract. The Contract Participation Matrix shall include total participation dollars for each SB category, total other than small business participation dollars, total participation dollars, the total contract value, and percent of participation based on total contract value for each SB category.

d. For each proposed small business company identified in the Contract Participation Matrix who is not in the System for Award Management (SAM) database, the company’s written certification of the small business size and type(s) shall be provided as part of the offerors proposal.

e. SB participation shall include all SB categories for which the business qualifies. For example, a HUBZone certified, SDVOSB would be included in the SB percentage, the HUBZone percentage, the SDVOSB percentage AND the VOSB percentage.

2. Past Small Business Participation (Realism)

a. Offerors shall provide the following information on each recent (performed within three years prior to the initial solicitation closing date) and relevant (for the same or similar products/services) contract where FAR clause 52.219-8 applied: the total contract value, the total dollars to each small business category, the total subcontracting dollars to other than small business, and total small business participation as a percent of total contract value for each category. A SB offeror shall identify and include its own performance in the documentation.

b. If an offeror proposes substantially different small business participation than provided in response to paragraph 2a above, then it must explain how it will accomplish this and/or the reason for the higher/lower proposed level.

3. Offeror shall state its own size as Small or Other Than Small. List all applicable SB Type(s) if offeror is a Small Business.

4. Note for other than small businesses ONLY. Separate from Small Business Participation, other than small business offerors must also submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan as required by FAR 19.7, (FAR clause 52.219-9). The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be consistent with proposed small business participation.

Evaluation of Proposals – Section M

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This acquisition will utilize a Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection Process authorized at FAR 15.101-1, as supplemented; therefore, the offeror submitting the proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government given appropriate consideration to the four evaluation factors (Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Price) will be awarded a contract. The Government expects to award up to two (2) IDIQ contracts as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to: limit the competitive range for the purposes of efficiency; make an award to other than the low offer; or make no award should no vendor’s offer prove to be acceptable based on the criteria set forth in the solicitation. The Government intends to award without discussions. The Government will make award(s) to the responsible (in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)) contractor whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering cost and non-cost factors taking into consideration the relative importance of each. Adjectival ratings will be assigned based on the rating that best fits the proposal overall, based on the Government’s assessment. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and other information required by Section L of this solicitation.

M.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS: The Government intends to make up to two awards to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be the best value.

With the exception of the minimum guaranteed dollar value, all other amounts represented in this solicitation are estimates only and do not bind the Government in any way. An award under this solicitation in no way obligates the Government to order additional items or issue additional Delivery Orders beyond the guaranteed minimum.

M.3. AWARD DECISION:

Evaluation Factors Rankings: A tradeoff will be conducted based on a comparative assessment of the Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Price Factors.

M.3.1. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance is more important than Price. Price is more important than Small Business Participation. All non-price factors, when combined, are slightly more important than Price. Although Price is not the most important element, it could become a controlling factor if non-price factors are relatively equal. Since the Technical Factor is the most important factor for consideration in the award decision, the Government reserves the right to make an award to an offeror with a higher priced proposal that is superior in the Technical Factor. The closer the ratings in the Technical Factor, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation, the more significant Price becomes.

M.3.2. Award(s) will be made to the offeror who submits the proposal determined to be the best value to the government, subject to a positive responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Part 9 and conformance of the offeror’s proposal to the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

M.4. RESPONSIBILITY: The Government will determine responsibility of the apparent successful offeror in accordance with FAR 9.1.

M.5. PROPOSAL EVALUATION:

M.5.1. All proposals shall be evaluated by a team of Government personnel in strict adherence to the evaluation criteria delineated within the solicitation. The Government will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the offeror’s proposal. With the exception of Past Performance, evaluators shall not consider or use as a basis for evaluation any assumptions, preconceived ideas, and personal knowledge or opinions not supported by material provided in the proposal. However, the evaluation of Past Performance may use data other than that provided with the offeror’s proposal (e.g., past customers and previous contracting officials.)

M.6. EVALUATION FACTORS: It is the Government’s intent to award up to two Firm-Fixed Price IDIQ contract without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposal on its thoroughness, soundness, and comprehension of the requirement as to high likelihood of success. The Government will consider the following factors in the evaluation of proposals received under this solicitation:

M.6.1. Factor 1 Technical Factor:

M.6.1.1 Subfactor 1- Manufacturing Plan:

The offeror will be evaluated on the adequacy of its proposed Manufacturing Plan for the production of the M28B2 Primer to meet or exceed the requirements of the solicitation. The Plan shall also include major/key subcontractors. Major or key subcontractors are defined as those that will be providing critical hardware or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the proposed price. The offeror’s plan must be realistic, achievable, and supportable. The Government’s evaluation will focus on the following:

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed manufacturing process and process map for M28B2 Primer to determine if the process demonstrates an adequate approach and sufficient understanding of the requirements. This evaluation will include the steps required for manufacture, assembly, inspection, test, marking and packaging as well as the sequence of operations for all major assemblies, subassemblies, and parts in order to meet the requirement of the solicitation. The elements that the offeror proposes to subcontract or purchase as materials/parts will also be evaluated to determine if the proposal is realistic and sufficient to meet the requirement of the solicitation.

b. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed prime and key subcontractor’s essential manufacturing and test facilities, manufacturing and test equipment, and tooling to determine if the proposal is effective and capable of meeting the solicitation requirements for delivery rates, quality requirements, and schedule. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed facilities, equipment and tooling demonstrates an ability to meet the proposed maximum capacity monthly production rates; and whether it demonstrates an ability of these facilities, equipment and tooling to perform for the life of the contract.

c. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed essential skills (including production, production support, and technical skills) and availability of the particular skills to determine if they are satisfactory and demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements considered necessary to manage and produce the M28B2 Primer. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the realism of the plan to ensure that any required personnel training or certifications are obtained, and will be maintained or updated over the life of the contract.

d. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine if the details of the “Critical Process Areas” and the offeror’s process control and equipment maintenance plans to be used in the manufacture of the individual component or components that the offeror is proposing are complete and demonstrate a comprehensive approach and thorough understanding of the requirements.

e. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine if the process for insertion of new state-of-the-art, advanced or alternate technology or process improvements into production over the life of the contract demonstrates acceptable flexibility, willingness to include new technology, and a thorough understanding of the requirements.

M.6.1.2. Subfactor 2 - Quality Assurance and Critical Safety Characteristics Plan:

This Subfactor evaluates the offeror’s detailed plan for the performance of the Quality Assurance and Critical Safety Characteristics requirements as follows:

a. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine if the identification of each Critical Safety Characteristic and the associated process for inspection of each critical safety characteristic demonstrates a comprehensive approach and thorough understanding of the requirements. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s plan to identify, manage, and control Safety Critical Characteristic data submitted (which shall include the manufacturing process involved, the specific pieces of equipment and their function involved in fabrication, assembly, inspection and test at the Prime and subcontractor levels) to determine if the proposal displays a realistic approach and comprehensive understanding of the requirement. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for the specific methods to control the process for each Safety Critical Characteristic, as well as the specific system for notification of non-compliance to determine if the methods are reasonable and executable.

b. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine if the Quality Management System demonstrates certification to or compliance with Industry Standards such as ISO 9001 (or equivalent system). The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed system is sufficiently detailed and suitable for use in performing the resulting contract. The Government will also evaluate the proposal to determine if the offeror’s approach to document and control the manufacturing processes with respect to their impact on performance, safety, and storage life expectancy is complete, detailed, and illustrates a thorough understanding of the requirements.

c. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine if the proposed quality system provides adequate and realistic 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 evaluate the proposal to determine if the individual quality requirements will be successfully “flowed down” to the major/key subcontractors and suppliers so they meet specified requirements. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the quality system effectively relates to the quality plan for the individual components and exhibits an understanding of the requirements.

d. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine if the offeror’s approach to identifying, inspecting, and prevention and control of critical production processes and identification of the associated production and test equipment is effective and realistic. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s approach to identify the source of variation and improve and control the process is acceptable and indicates an understanding of the requirements.

e. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine if the offeror’s process for identifying, segregating and disposition of non-conforming material is adequate and executable as well as the process for analyzing and failure investigation of non-conforming material. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if it includes acceptable and comprehensive details of any forms, tags, reports, committees and special storage areas required for non-conforming materials. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the procedures for line stoppage, Government notification and restart are sufficient and reflect an understanding of the requirements.

f. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine if the offeror’s proposed Quality Tools and Systems such as statistical process control (SPC), material review boards, equipment calibration process, incoming material control, Failure Reporting Analysis and Corrective Action System (FRACAS), defect prevention plan, continuous quality improvement, failure analysis, and root cause analysis as well as any initiatives to minimize quality problems are appropriate and adequate for use on M28B2 Primer. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed initiatives to be used to minimize quality problems are acceptable and demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirement.

M.6.1.3. Technical and Risk Factor Ratings:

The ratings below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. The color/adjectival rating depict how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical Subfactor requirements.

The Technical color/adjectival rating will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding (Blue), Good (Purple), Acceptable (Green), Marginal (Yellow), or Unacceptable (Red) as follows:

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

M.6.2. Factor 2 Past Performance: The Government shall evaluate the Past Performance subfactors of Quality and Relevance to determine the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Within the factor of Past Performance, all subfactors are of equal importance. One performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned as detailed below:

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings:

Substantial Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence: Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral): No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Subfactor 6.2.1 Quality: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of complying with contractual requirements for all recent and relevant past performance in the area of quality assurance, timeliness and adherence to delivery schedule. The Government will evaluate the offerors past performance in regards to maintaining a quality control checklist as well as a customer feedback system.

Subfactor 6.2.2 Relevance: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to the effort to be acquired through this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the most common aspects of relevancy to include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

M.6.3. Factor 3 Price:

M.6.3.1. Price is an evaluation factor; however, it will not be adjectively scored. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that contracts be awarded at prices that are fair and reasonable. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1, relying primarily upon competition.

The government expects adequate competition and a comparison will be made of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to require submission of cost and pricing data and/or other than cost or pricing data from the offeror adequate to determine the reasonableness of an offer if competition was inadequate for that purpose or if such data is needed to make a responsibility determination. Tradeoffs may be made for superior technical and/or past performance ability. The Government shall utilize the Pricing Matrix to order products and establish payment structure for invoices submitted. The Government is under no obligation to place orders for products beyond the guaranteed minimum quantity. Failure to provide prices for all items within each CLIN is unacceptable and may render the offeror ineligible for award. Unbalanced pricing will be evaluated as required by FAR 15.404-1(g). A proposal may be rejected if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government reserves the right to reject proposals that are unreasonably low or high in price.

M.6.4. Factor 4 Small Business Participation:

M.6.4.1. As required by DFARS 215.304, Small Business Participation is an evaluation factor in this acquisition. The Small Business Participation Factor contains no subfactors. The offeror will be deemed as meeting the requirements if the proposal identifies (a) proposed small business participation in the potential contract to include complexity; and (b) past small business participation in contract performance (realism). The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on:

Proposed small business participation

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed participation of Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), hereinafter all referred to as SB.

b. For SBs, as identified by the size standard for the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code applicable to this solicitation, the offeror’s own participation as a SB will be included in the evaluation of small business participation.

c. The Government will evaluate the extent (percentage based on total contract value) to which an offeror identifies and commits to utilizing SB in the performance of the proposed contract as it relates to the goals of:

SB – 23%

SDB – 5%

WOSB – 5%

HUBZone – 3%

VOSB – 3%

SDVOSB – 3%

d. The Government will use the System for Award Management (SAM) database to verify the size and small business type(s) for small business companies identified in the Contract Participation Matrix. If the size and small business type(s) cannot be verified, the offeror’s proposed small business percentages may be adjusted.

e. Complexity of specific products/services provided by those SBs.

Past small business participation (realism).

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s actual past performance in achieving the proposed small business participation on recent (performed within three years prior to the initial solicitation closing date) and relevant (for the same or similar products/services) contracts.

b. For all offerors, the percent of small business participation to total contract value on each recent and relevant contract will be compared to the proposed percent of small business participation to proposed total contract value.

c. Offerors that have no recent and relevant contractual history that require compliance with FAR 52.219-8 will be treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The proposal will be evaluated on only the elements of the extent of SB Participation in terms of value of the total contract and the complexity of specific products/services that will be provided by those SBs.

The proposal will be given an adjectival rating without regard to realism. Such an offeror’s rating will, however, note that it had no past small business participation.

M.6.4.2. The Government will develop one overall Small Business Participation rating for each offeror based on the evaluation criteria described above. The following Adjectival Scale will be used to determine the overall Small Business Participation rating:

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.