Solicitation_Amendment_W56HZV15R0026-0002_-_M917A3_Heavy_Dump_Truck.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code Page Of

2. Amendment/Modification No.

3. Effective Date

4. Requisition/Purchase Req No.

5. Project No. (If applicable)

6. Issued By Code 7. Administered By (If other than Item 6) Code

8. Name And Address Of Contractor (No., Street, City, County, State and Zip Code)

9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.

9B. Dated (See Item 11)

10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

10B. Dated (See Item 13) Code Facility Code

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning ____________ copies of the amendments: (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. Accounting And Appropriation Data (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

It Modifies The Contract/Order No. As Described In Item 14.

A. This Change Order is Issued Pursuant To: The Changes Set Forth In Item 14 Are Made In

The Contract/Order No. In Item 10A.

B. The Above Numbered Contract/Order Is Modified To Reflect The Administrative Changes (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) Set

Forth In Item 14, Pursuant To The Authority of FAR 43.103(b).

C. This Supplemental Agreement Is Entered Into Pursuant To Authority Of:

D. Other (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return _______________ copies to the Issuing Office.

14. Description Of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. Name And Title Of Signer (Type or print)

16A. Name And Title Of Contracting Officer (Type or print)

15B. Contractor/Offeror 15C. Date Signed 16B. United States Of America 16C. Date Signed

By (Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

30-105-02 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE SCHEDULE

X

Firm Fixed Price

0002 2017JUL21

W56HZV

U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND

WARREN, MICHIGAN 48397-5000

LISA GERASIMIDIS

EMAIL: LISA.GERASIMIDIS.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W56HZV-15-R-0026

2017MAY25

X

X 2017AUG25 01:00pm

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 8

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: LISA GERASIMIDIS

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCTA-HTA-B/(586)282-9971

Type of Contract 1: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

Solicitation: W56HZV-15-R-0026

Amendment: 0002

Prepared By: LG

The purpose of this Amendment 0002 to Solicitation: W56HZV-15-R-0026 is as follows:

1. Update Attachment 0001 - M917A3 Performance Specification (PS-M917A3) from the version dated 20 June 2017 to version dated 21 July

2017.

2. Update Attachment 0002 - Performance Requirements Matrix from the version dated 20 December 2016 to version dated 21 July 2017.

3. Revise Section M.4.1.1 as follows:

FROM: M.4.1.1 Subfactor (1) Payload

The offerors substantiating information submitted in response to L.4.1 will be evaluated to assess the risk associated with the offered configuration meeting the offerors proposed performance levels for PSPEC 145 in Attachment 0002. Extra evaluation credit, proportional to the amount of performance above threshold, may be given for proposed performance above the threshold performance level up to the objective as provided in M.4.1.4.

TO: M.4.1.1 Subfactor (1) Payload

M.4.1.1.1 PSPEC 408 Haul Loads (Primary and Secondary Roads) (HDT Unarmored Configuration) -

Threshold

The offerors substantiating information submitted in response to L.4.1 will be evaluated to assess the risk associated with the offered configuration meeting the threshold performance level for PSPEC 408 in Attachment 0002. No extra credit will be given for exceeding the threshold performance level, except to the extent that performance beyond the threshold level reduces the risk of achieving the threshold performance level.

M.4.1.1.2 PSPEC 2830 Haul Loads (Primary and Secondary Roads) (HDT Armored Configuration) -

Objective

The offerors substantiating information submitted in response to L.4.1 will be evaluated to assess the risk associated with the offered configuration meeting the offerors proposed performance levels for PSPEC 2830 in Attachment 0002. Extra evaluation credit, proportional to the amount of performance, may be given for proposed performance up to the objective as provided in M.4.1.4.

4. Extend the solicitation closing date as follows:

FROM: 10 August 2017 TO: 25 August 2017

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0004 ***

2 8

W56HZV-15-R-0026 0002

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 0001 M917A3 PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION (PS-M917A3) 21-JUL-2017 331 DATA

Attachment 0002 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS MATRIX 21-JUL-2017 002 DATA

3 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD_______________________________________

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.1 It is the Governments intent to award of a five (5) year base plus two (2) option years, Firm Fixed-Price, Indefinite Delivery

Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal, in the Source Selection Authority's opinion, represents the best value to the Government.

There are three evaluation factors:

a. Factor 1: Technical

b. Factor 2: Price

c. Factor 3: Small Business Participation

The relative order of importance of these factors, and subfactors where applicable, are described section M.4 below.

M.1.1.2 Selection of the proposal which is most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government will be determined on a

Source Selection trade-off basis from offeror proposals which are otherwise eligible for award.

M.1.1.3 To be eligible for award, offeror proposals shall:

a. Be determined responsible (See Section M.3.1.4);

b. Include no Deficiencies (per FAR Part 15.001).

M.1.1.3.1 Proposals which are eligible for award in accordance with Section M.1.1.3 will be subject to the Source Selection Trade-off process, considering both the evaluation factors and their relative order of importance as cited in Section M.4, to identify the proposal which represents the best value and is most advantageous to the Government. The Government will weigh the evaluated proposals

(other than the Price Factor) against the total evaluated cost/price to the Government. As part of the best value determination, the relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal shall be considered in selecting the offer that is most advantageous and represents the best overall value to the Government. The Government may choose not to award a contract where it concludes that no proposal exists with a reasonable probability of achieving program requirements complying with contract terms and conditions.

M.1.2 Importance of Price

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal (1) is otherwise eligible for award under M.1.1.3, and (2) represents the best value to the Government. This may not be the offeror with the lowest evaluated price. However, the closer offerors evaluations are to each other in those Factors other than the Price Factor, the more important price becomes in the decision. Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the three evaluation factors stated herein, price may be controlling when:

a. proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-cost/price factors; or

b. an otherwise superior proposal is unaffordable; or

c. the advantages of a higher rated, higher cost/price proposal are not considered to be worth the cost/price premium

M.1.3 Requirement for Facility Clearance (SECRET)

Portions of the information on this program will be classified as SECRET. To be considered for award, offerors and subcontractors must have a SECRET Facility Clearance (FCL). Offerors must submit documentation indicating its facility has been granted a SECRET FCL.

Offerors who are considering a subcontractor must also submit documentation indicating that its subcontractor has obtained the necessary clearance in order for those subcontractors to handle classified material. All FCL information will be verified through the Defense

Security Service for all offerors and their subcontractors. Offerors without a SECRET FCL neither will be able to discuss or access key aspects of the program that are classified nor will they be able to pass such information on to their subcontractor.

M.1.4 Export Controlled Information

This solicitation contains Export Controlled information in Controlled Unclassified Attachments and within the Classified Annexes to this solicitation. It is the responsibility of the offeror, not the Government, to obtain the necessary export licenses to share any such information with subcontractors or to obtain access to the files themselves. The failure or inability of an offeror to obtain the appropriate license or agreement will not be considered as a mitigating factor in the evaluation process.

4 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.2 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any proposal if in the Governments best interest. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following proposal conditions:

a. The proposal fails to meaningfully respond to the Proposal Preparation Instructions specified in Section L of this solicitation.

Examples of failure to meaningfully respond include:

(1) When an offerors proposal merely offers to perform work according to the RFP terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the RFP terms or does not provide support and detail as specified in Section L of this solicitation.

(2) When an offerors proposal fails to provide any of the data and information required in Section L.

(3) When an offerors proposal provides some data and information but omits significant material data and information required by

Section L.

(4) When an offerors proposal merely repeats the contract Scope of Work without elaboration.

b. Offers a product or service that does not meet all stated material requirements of the solicitation.

c. Takes exception(s) to the attachments, exhibits, enclosures, or other RFP terms and conditions.

d. Contains one or more Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) for which sufficient negation or mitigation has not been proposed.

Refer to Section L paragraph L.3.2 of this solicitation, "Organizational Conflict of Interest."

e. Is unbalanced as to price IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), an unbalanced offer is one which is based on prices significantly high or low for one given period or line item versus another period or line item. There must be a direct relationship between the effort expended and its price for each CLIN and incrementally funded period.

f. The offeror and significant subcontractor failed to obtain a Facility Clearance (FCL) for the classified specification in the

Performance Specification (PSPEC) IAW Section L.3.1.5 in advance of the RFP closing. The offeror and significant subcontractor failed to obtain the classified specification identified in the PSPEC.

g. The proposals acceptance period does not meet the Governments required minimum acceptance period (refer to Section L. 1.9).

M.3 Evaluation and Source Selection Process

M.3.1 Evaluation Process

Selection of the successful offeror shall be made following an assessment of each proposal, based on the response to the information called for in Section L of this solicitation and against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria described in Section

M. Proposals will be evaluated as specified herein, to include narrative support for the evaluation conclusions under each Factor and

Subfactor. The Government reserves the right to reject offers in accordance with solicitation provision Rejection of Offers above.

M.3.1.1 Source Selection Authority

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to direct the source selection process and select the offeror for contract award. A Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) will provide a written comparative analysis of the proposals and an award recommendation for the SSA prior to the selection decision.

M.3.1.2 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

An SSEB has been established by the Government to evaluate proposals in response to this solicitation. The SSEB is comprised of technically qualified individuals who have been selected to conduct an evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed for this solicitation. Careful, full and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received pursuant to this solicitation. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel.

M.3.1.3 Award without Discussions

In accordance with FAR 52.212-1(g), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors

(this excludes clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If conducted, the scope and extent of discussions are a matter of contracting officer judgement.

5 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

, discussions on pricing issues do not obligate the Government to discuss technical issues, nor do discussions on technical issues obligate the Government to discuss pricing issues. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M.3.1.4 Determination of Responsibility

Per FAR Part 9.103, a contract will be placed only with the offeror that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. That is, the offeror who satisfactorily demonstrates the capability to perform the necessary tasks and delivery of the required items on time.

Prospective offeror(s), in order to qualify as sources for this acquisition, must be able to demonstrate that they meet standards of responsibility set forth in FAR Part 9.104. In addition, the Government may assess the offeror's financial and management capabilities to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey on any or all offeror(s) or their subcontractors to aid the Contracting Officer in the evaluation of each offeror's proposal and ensure that a selected offeror is responsible. Additional requirements of responsibility for this contract are the necessary Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility

Clearance. No award can be made to an offeror who has been determined to be not responsible by the Contracting Officer. To make sure that you meet the responsibility criteria at FAR Part 9.104, the Government may:

a. arrange a visit to your plant and perform a necessary Pre-Award Survey, or

b. request an offeror provide financial, technical, production, or managerial background information. If the requested information is not submitted within seven calendar days from the date of the receipt of the request, or if an offeror refuses the Government access to its facility, the Government may determine the offeror non-responsible. If the Government visits the offeror's facility, please ensure that current data relevant to the proposal is available for Government personnel to review.

M.4 Evaluation Criteria

There are three evaluation factors:

a. Factor 1: Technical (M.4.1)

b. Factor 2: Total Evaluated Price (M.4.2)

c. Factor 3: Small Business Participation (M.4.3)

Relative Order of Importance. Technical is more important than Price. Price, is significantly more important than Small Business

Participation. The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price Factor.

M.4.1 Evaluation of Volume II Factor 1: Technical

The Technical Factor includes the following three (3) Subfactors: (1) Payload, (2) Force Protection, and (3) Mobility (VCI). Subfactor

(1) Payload and Subfactor (2) Force Protection are equal in importance to each other. Subfactor (1) Payload and Subfactor (2) Force

Protection are, on an individual basis, more important than Subfactor (3) Mobility (VCI).

M.4.1.1 Subfactor (1) Payload (Revised per Amendment 0002)

M.4.1.1.1 PSPEC 408 Haul Loads (Primary and Secondary Roads) (HDT Unarmored Configuration) - Threshold

The offerors substantiating information submitted in response to L.4.1 will be evaluated to assess the risk associated with the offered configuration meeting the threshold performance level for PSPEC 408 in Attachment 0002. No extra credit will be given for exceeding the threshold performance level, except to the extent that performance beyond the threshold level reduces the risk of achieving the threshold performance level.

M.4.1.1.2 PSPEC 2830 Haul Loads (Primary and Secondary Roads) (HDT Armored Configuration) - Objective

The offerors substantiating information submitted in response to L.4.1 will be evaluated to assess the risk associated with the offered configuration meeting the offerors proposed performance levels for PSPEC 2830 in Attachment 0002. Extra evaluation credit, proportional to the amount of performance, may be given for proposed performance up to the objective as provided in M.4.1.4.

M.4.1.2 Subfactor (2) Force Protection

The offerors substantiating information submitted in response to L.4.1 will be evaluated to assess the risk associated with the offered configuration meeting the offerors proposed performance levels for PSPEC 2780 in Attachment 0002. Extra evaluation credit, proportional to the amount of performance above threshold, may be given for proposed performance above the threshold performance level up to the objective as provided in M.4.1.4.

M.4.1.3 Subfactor (3) Mobility (VCI)

6 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

The offerors substantiating information submitted in response to L.4.1 will be evaluated to assess the risk associated with the offered configuration meeting the offerors proposed performance levels for PSPEC 1567 in Attachment 0002. Extra evaluation credit, proportional to the amount of performance above threshold, may be given for proposed performance above the threshold performance level up to the objective as provided in M.4.1.4.

M.4.1.4 Evaluation of Objective requirements

Evaluation credit in the form of a proportional strength may be given for proposed performance above the threshold requirement up to the objective. A strength may result in an increase in the assigned rating for the appropriate Factor and Subfactor(s). Evaluation credit will not be given for exceeding the objective performance requirement.

M.4.1.4.1 To receive objective performance evaluation credit, the offerors proposal must demonstrate to the Government that the proposed performance level is achievable at moderate or lower risk. Where the objective performance level is evaluated as having risk higher than moderate risk for achieving proposed performance, no additional evaluation credit will be given, nor shall such a proposal be considered a proposal strength or to have benefit to the Government.

M.4.1.4.2 If the Government evaluation of the proposal indicates that the achievement of the proposed performance level above the threshold, up to the objective, is likely at moderate risk or lower, the proposed level of performance will be included in any resulting contract. In the event an offeror does not agree to incorporate the proposed level of performance into the resulting contract, the offeror will not be credited, in whole or in part, with achievement of performance beyond the threshold.

M.4.1.5 Substantiating Information. The primary purpose of the substantiating information submitted for this Factor is to document and support the proposed technical performance levels. Offerors shall not assume that substantiating data submitted for this factor will be considered in the evaluation of other factors of the proposal. However, the Government reserves the right to utilize the substantiating information in other areas of the evaluation at its sole discretion.

M.4.1.6 Test Data. Government test data which supports the offered design configurations ability to meet requirements, and up to objective (where applicable) performance levels, represents the most credible form of substantiating information. Therefore, any substantiating information for a design configuration which meaningfully varies from the offered design configuration may be considered less credible. The extent to which the offered design configuration meaningfully varies from the tested configuration, or testing conducted under Operating Environments different than those required by the PSPEC, may be considered by the Government in assessing the relevance of the test data as substantiating information. Substantiating information other than Government test data may be considered less credible.

The extent to which the offered configuration varies from the tested configuration will be considered in the risk evaluation. Proposed corrective actions or design changes which are either untested or partially tested may increase risk.

M.4.2 Evaluation of Volume III Factor 2: Price

M.4.2.1 The Price Factor evaluation will consider the total evaluated price. The total evaluated price is the sum of the proposed prices for all CLINs as calculated in Attachment 0024.

M.4.2.2 The total evaluated price will include an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposed price. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The

Government may make a determination of reasonableness by any means allowable under FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

M.4.2.3 The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) may be requested to verify proposed rates projections.

M.4.2.4 Unbalanced Pricing: Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the price of one or more contract line items or periods is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

Unbalanced offers may be determined unacceptable. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for more information on unbalanced offers.

M.4.2.5 Transportation costs will not be evaluated.

M.4.3 Evaluation of Volume IV Factor 3: Small Business Participation

M.4.3.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of the Offerors approach to achieving the Government's objective of providing maximum practicable opportunities in meeting the small business participation goals identified in this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the extent of small business participation proposed and credibility of the data provided in the proposal measured against the

Small Business Participation Factor goals for this solicitation. Please note the solicitation goals are expressed as a percentage of

'Total Contract Amount', Pricing Worksheet, Attachment 0024, Cell B20 of the Contract Price Summary tab, which is defined for this Small

Business Participation Factor as total proposed amount for all of the Basic CLINs and all of the Option CLINs. The Government's small business participation goals for this solicitation are:

7 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

7.9% Small Business (SB)

1.1% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

1.1% Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB)

0.7% Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB)

0.7% Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

0.7% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

M.4.3.2 Assessment of Proposed Goals Above or Below Government Goals.

Where the Offeror proposes small business participation higher than the Government's goals and the Government has determined that achievement of said small business participation is credible, or where the Offeror is assessed as credibly being able to achieve or exceed the Government's goals, the Government may assign the Offeror a strength against such proposal. Where the Offeror proposes small business participation lower than the Government's goals, or where the Offeror is assessed as not credibly being able to achieve the

Government's goals, the Government may assign a weakness or significant weakness against such proposal.

M.4.3.3 Contractual Goals.

If the awardee is other than a small business, the data submitted as part of the Small Business Participation Factor shall be consistent with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan which will be incorporated in the resultant contract, regardless of whether the Offeror proposed goals for the Small Business Participation Factor above, at, or below the Government's solicitation goals.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

8 8