W56HZV19R0101-0008.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

Cost Plus Fixed Fee

0008 2020SEP10

W56HZV

ACC-DTA

6501 E. 11 MILE RD.

DETROIT ARSENAL, MI 48397-5000

JUSTIN STONER

EMAIL: JUSTIN.D.STONER.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W56HZV-19-R-0101

2020FEB03

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 12

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: JUSTIN STONER

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCTA-AI/(586)764-0418

Type of Contract 1: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Type of Contract 2: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: System Acquisition Contracts

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of Amendment 0008 to RFP W56HZV-19-R-0101 is to accomplish the following:

1. To ensure consistency between Section M and Attachment 0009 (i.e., Consistency in M.4.1, Remove references to 3.2.28.4 in Section M, adding Objective only performance to M.4.1.4.2.1 from changes on Amendment 04), the following changes are made to Section M:

a. Change Narrative M0001, M.4.1

FROM:

M.4.1 Factor 1, Technical

The Technical Factor contains three Subfactors: Subfactor 1) Tier 1, Subfactor 2) Tier 2, and Subfactor 3) Tier 3

The order of importance of these three Subfactors is as follows: Subfactor 1 - Tier 1 is slightly more important than

Subfactor 2 -Tier 2, which is more important than Subfactor 3 - Tier 3. Unless otherwise stated, the requirements within each

Subfactor are of equal importance within that Subfactor.

TO:

M.4.1 Factor 1, Technical

The Technical Factor contains three Subfactors: Subfactor 1) Tier 1, Subfactor 2) Tier 2, and Subfactor 3) Tier 3

The order of importance of these three Subfactors is as follows: Subfactor 1 - Tier 1 is slightly more important than

Subfactor 2 -Tier 2, which is more important than Subfactor 3 - Tier 3. Unless otherwise stated, the requirements (Column B:

Performance specification ID in Attachment 0009) within each Subfactor are of equal importance within that Subfactor.

b. Change Narrative M0001, M.4.1.4.2.1:

FROM:

M.4.1.4.2.1 The Government will not assess a weakness if the offeror does not propose any objective-only capability

(Reference TAB 4 Tier 3 Evaluated of Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0009), Requirements 3.2.28.2 through 3.2.28.4

(Secondary Optics), and requirement numbers 3.2.30.1 and 3.2.30.2 (MCWS Turret Survivability)).

TO:

M.4.1.4.2.1 The Government will not assess a weakness if the offeror does not propose any objective-only capability

(Reference TAB 4 Tier 3 Evaluated of Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0009), Requirement 3.2.28 (Secondary Optics,

3.2.28.2 and 3.2.28.3 performance), Requirement 3.2.30 (MCWS Turret Survivability, 3.2.30.1 and 3.2.30.2 performance), and

Requirement 3.2.16 (Primary Optics, 3.2.16.1.3.2 performance).

c. Change Narrative M0001, M.4.1.4.3.1

FROM:

M.4.1.4.3.1 For proposed performance Between Threshold and Objective or at Objective, the Government may assess additional evaluation credit in the form of a proportional strength if the proposed threshold (or above) performance is supported by credible substantiating data and is assessed no worse than moderate risk of not achieving the proposed performance. A proportional strength means that the Government may take into account the margin between proposed performance and the threshold when assessing strength(s). The only exception for proportional strength is requirement numbers 3.2.28.2 through

3.2.28.4(Secondary Optics), 3.2.30.1 and 3.2.30.2 (MCWS Turret Survivability) and 3.2.20 (Hatches), and 3.2.16.1.3.2

(Additional Wider Optical FOV) which the Offeror must propose to meet at the Objective level in order for potential additional evaluation credit in the form of a strength.

TO:

2 12

W56HZV-19-R-0101

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.4.1.4.3.1 For proposed performance Between Threshold and Objective or at Objective, the Government may assess additional evaluation credit in the form of a proportional strength if the proposed threshold (or above) performance is supported by credible substantiating data and is assessed no worse than moderate risk of not achieving the proposed performance. A proportional strength means that the Government may take into account the margin between proposed performance and the threshold when assessing strength(s). The only exception for proportional strength is requirement numbers 3.2.28 (Secondary

Optics, 3.2.28.2 and 3.2.28.3 performance), 3.2.30 (MCWS Turret Survivability, 3.2.30.1 and 3.2.30.2 performance), 3.2.20

(Hatches), and 3.2.16 (Primary Optics, 3.2.16.1.3.2 (Additional Wider Optical FOV) performance) which the Offeror must propose to meet at the Objective level in order for potential additional evaluation credit in the form of a strength.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0009 ***

3 12

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Basis of Award

M.1.1 Overview

The Government intends to award a single Requirements type contract, consisting of both FFP and CPFF CLINs. The Government will select for award the proposal which represent the best value to the Government as described below.

There are four evaluation Factors:

(a) Factor 1, Technical (M.4.1);

(b) Factor 2, Past Performance (M.4.2);

(c) Factor 3, Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) (M.4.3); and

(d) Factor 4, Small Business Participation (M.4.4).

Relative Order of Importance: Technical is more important than Past Performance, which is slightly more important than VATEP. VATEP is significantly more important than Small Business Participation. As required to be defined by FAR 15.304(e), the non-VATEP factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the VATEP Factor.

The Technical Factor is further divided into three Subfactors, as described in M.4.1.

An 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 determination may result in award to other than the Offeror with the lowest VATEP. However, the closer

Offerors' evaluations are in the non-VATEP Factors, the more important VATEP becomes in the decision. Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the four evaluation Factors as stated, VATEP may be the controlling Factor when:

(a) proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-VATEP factors; or

(b) an otherwise superior proposal is unaffordable; or

(c) the advantages of a higher rated, higher VATEP proposal are not considered to be worth the VATEP premium.

M.1.1.2 Selection of the Best Value Proposal

Selection of the proposal which is most advantageous and represent the best value to the Government will be determined on a Best Value trade-off basis considering the evaluation Factors and their relative order of importance (see Section M.1.1). The Government reserves the right to choose not to award a contract if such action is in the Governments best interest.

M.1.1.3 Eligibility for Award

M.1.1.3.1 Award will only be made to an offeror who is eligible for award. To be eligible for award, the Offeror's proposal shall:

(a) Establish that it possesses a minimum of Secret FCL as verified through the Defense Security Service (see M.1.3);

(b) Be Affordable (see Section M.3.2);

(c) Not include any Deficiencies (per FAR 15.001);

(d) Include a statement of acknowledgement IAW L.4.5.3.1; and

(e) Be determined responsible (see Section M.3.3)

M.1.2 Export Controlled Information

This solicitation contains Export Controlled Information in both Controlled Unclassified Attachment(s) and within CLASSIFIED

Attachment(s) to this solicitation. It is the responsibility of the Offeror, not the Government, to obtain the appropriate export license(s) exemption(s), etc. which are necessary in order for the Offeror to share any such information with non-US subcontractors, or to obtain access to the files themselves. The failure or inability of an Offeror to obtain the appropriate export compliance documentation may be considered as grounds for rejection IAW M.2.

M.1.3 Requirement for Facility Clearance (FCL) (SECRET)

Portions of the information on this program are classified as SECRET//NOFORN. To be considered for award, Offerors and subcontractors

(whoever will handle SECRET//NOFORN material) must have a SECRET FCL. FCL information will be verified through the Defense Security

Service for all Offerors and its subcontractors that will require access to SECRET//NOFORN materials. Offerors without a SECRET FCL will neither be able to discuss nor access key aspects of the program that are classified nor will they be able to pass such information on to their subcontractor(s).

M.2 Rejection of Offers

Offerors shall carefully read, understand, and provide all the information requested in Section L. IAW FAR clause 52.215-1, ALT I contained in this solicitation, the Government may reject any or all proposals at any time, and without evaluation, if such action is in the Government's interests. The circumstances which may lead to the rejection of a proposal include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) The proposal fails to meaningfully respond to the Proposal Content, Format and Instructions, or Proposal Volume Instructions specified in Section L of this solicitation.

4 12

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Examples of failure to meaningfully respond include:

i. When an Offeror's proposal merely offers to perform work according to the solicitation terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the solicitation terms and does not provide support and elaboration as specified in

Section L of this solicitation.

ii. When an Offeror's proposal fails to provide any of the data and information required in Section L.

i. When an Offeror's proposal provides some data but omits significant material data and information required by Section L.

iv. When an Offeror's proposal merely repeats the contract SOW without elaboration.

v. When an Offeror fails to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, if required.

vi. When an Offeror fails to submit a completed VATEP Workbook (Attachment 0052) IAW its instructions.

(b) The proposal contains unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR clause 52.215-1, ALT I and paragraph M.4.3.1.3.

(c) The proposal price is unaffordable (See Section M.3.1 and the Affordability worksheet in the VATEP Workbook (Attachment 0052).

(d) The proposal offers a product or service that does not meet all stated material requirements of the solicitation.

(e) The Offeror proposes exceptions or assumptions to the attachments, exhibits, enclosures, or other solicitation terms and conditions.

(f) RESERVED

(g) The Offeror fails to obtain the appropriate export compliance documentation or FCL as required by M.1.2 and M.1.3.

(h) The proposal reflects an inherent lack of technical competence which suggests the Offeror has a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the solicitation requirements.

(i) The Offeror proposes to be non-compliant to any Tier 1 requirement(s) in "TAB 1 - Tier 1 Evaluated", "TAB 2a - Tier 1 Self-Certify", and "Tab 2b-Tier 1 Baseline Impacts" in both the Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0009) and the Classified Requirements

Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0037).

(j) The Offeror's proposal does not contain an acceptance period, or contains an acceptance period that does not meet the Government's required minimum acceptance period per Section L.2.11.

(k) IAW the authority granted to the Government by FAR 52.204-22, Offers that do not comply with the line items specified in this solicitation may be determined nonresponsive or unacceptable.

(l) The Offeror fails to submit a Production Representative System Sample (L.2.1.2) or Armor Coupons/Tiles (L.2.1.1).

M.3 Evaluation and Source Selection Process

Compliance Review. After receipt of proposals, but prior to the evaluation process, the Government will perform a compliance review of the offerors proposal to determine the extent of compliance to the solicitation instructions.

Evaluation Process. Selection of the successful offeror will be made following an assessment of each proposal not otherwise rejected, based on the response to the information called for in Section L of this RFP, and against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria described herein. Proposals not otherwise rejected will be evaluated as specified herein, to include developing narrative support for the evaluation conclusions under each Factor.

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.

The evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this solicitation, and source selection, will be conducted using a trade-off process to obtain the best value to the Government. Proposals not otherwise rejected 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.1.1, to identify the proposals which represent the best value to the Government.

The Government will weigh the evaluated proposals (other than the VATEP Factor) against the VATEP to the Government. As part of the

5 12

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

best value determination, the relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each Offeror's proposal will be considered, as specified below, in addition to the other evaluation methods described below, in selecting the offers that are most advantageous and represent the best 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 complying with contract terms and conditions.

Selection of the successful Offeror will be made following an assessment of each proposal, based on the response to the information requested in Section L of this solicitation and against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria described in the entirety of this section.

M.3.1 Affordability

No proposal, no matter how highly rated under the non-VATEP Factors, will be considered for award if unaffordable. The Government will review the Offerors proposed Contract Cost/Price in the VATEP Factor Proposal to verify the Offerors proposal is affordable.

A proposal will be determined Affordable if its total proposed price(s) for 001X, 002X, 003X, and 004XCLINS as calculated in the

Affordability worksheet within the VATEP Factor Workbook (Attachment 0052) does not exceed $679.2 million. Proposals that exceed $679.2 million for 001X, 002X, 003X, and 004X CLINS will be determined unaffordable and will not be considered for award.

M.3.2 Award with Discussions

Section L of this solicitation includes FAR clause 52.215-1, ALT I (Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition), which advises that the Government intends to conduct discussions with Offerors in the Competitive Range. Discussions will be conducted IAW FAR

15.306. Since written and oral discussions are limited prior to any competitive range determination (FAR 15.306(c)), it is vitally important that Offeror's initial proposals are complete and comprehensive.

M.3.3 Determination of Responsibility

Per FAR 9.103, a contract will be awarded only to the Offeror(s) 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 9.104. Additional requirements of responsibility for this contract are the mandatory Defense Security

Service (DSS) FCL (See L.4.5.6 and M.1.3). No award can be made to an Offeror who has been determined to be not responsible by the

Contracting Officer. To make sure that an Offeror meets the responsibility criteria at FAR 9.104, the Government may:

(a) Arrange a visit to the Offeror(s) and its subcontractor's plant and perform a necessary Pre-Award Survey to aid the Contracting

Officer in the evaluation of each Offeror's proposal and ensure that a selected Offeror is responsible, or

(b) Request an Offeror provide financial, technical, production, or managerial background information to meet the solicitation requirements. 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, the Offeror must ensure that current data relevant to the proposal is available for Government personnel to review.

M.4 Evaluation Criteria

There are four evaluation criteria:

(a) Factor 1, Technical (M.4.1);

(b) Factor 2, Past Performance (M.4.2);

(c) Factor 3, Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) (M.4.3); and

(d) Factor 4, Small Business Participation (M.4.4).

The relative importance of these Factors is identified in M.1.1 above.

The Government reserves the right to utilize substantiating data submitted for one Factor in the evaluation of other Factors at its sole discretion.

M.4.1 Factor 1, Technical

The Technical Factor contains three Subfactors: Subfactor 1) Tier 1, Subfactor 2) Tier 2, and Subfactor 3) Tier 3

The order of importance of these three Subfactors is as follows: Subfactor 1 - Tier 1 is slightly more important than Subfactor 2 -

Tier 2, which is more important than Subfactor 3 - Tier 3. Unless otherwise stated, the requirements (Column B: Performance specification ID in Attachment 0009) within each Subfactor are of equal importance within that Subfactor.

M.4.1.1 For all Subfactors in the Technical Factor;

6 12

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.4.1.1.1 The purpose of the substantiating data submitted for each Subfactor is to document and support the credibility of an Offeror achieving its proposed level of performance for the requirements and capabilities defined in TAB 1 - Tier 1 Evaluated", TAB 3 - Tier 2

Evaluated, and TAB 4 - Tier 3 Evaluated in both the Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0009) and the Classified Requirements

Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0037). The Government will review the data obtained from the Production Representative System Sample

(PRSS) Test, Armor Coupon Test and other provided substantiating data in the breadth and depth necessary to conduct its assessment of the Offeror's proposed level of performance. The Government reserves the right to use any information submitted in response to the RFP and data obtained from the Government PRSS and Armor coupon testing.

M.4.1.1.2 US Government test data (which includes PRSS and Armor Coupon Test Data obtained during the evaluation) which establishes conformance to the proposed design configuration represents the highest form of substantiating data. Any substantiating data for a design configuration which meaningfully varies from the offered design configuration (including the PRSS) or differing test conditions may be considered less credible. The greater the extent to which the Offeror's proposed design configuration meaningfully varies from the design configuration to which the data applies, thereby undermining the credibility of the offered data, the more the Government may discount the validity of the substantiating data, which may increase the assessed risk.

M.4.1.1.3 As a requirement of this solicitation, all proposed performance (which includes both Evaluated and offeror-certified performance) as defined in column G of all TABS of the Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0009) and Classified Requirements

Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0037) will be incorporated in the resultant contract as Stryker MCWS System Performance Specification

(Attachment 0048) and the Classified Stryker MCWS System Performance Specification (Attachment 0050). See L.4.5.3.1.

M.4.1.1.4. The Offerors Technical Volume shall be consistent. The Government reserves the right to consider all information submitted for this Factor (which includes all TABS of the proposed Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0009) and Classified Requirements

Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0037)) in addition to the PRSS and Armor Coupons for the purposes of consistency. Any inconsistency within the Technical Volume, PRSS, and Armor Coupon Test data that indicates the Offeror has an inherent misunderstanding of requirements or an inability to perform the resultant contract, may result in an Offeror being assessed with increased risk.

M.4.1.1.5 When assessing the risk of the Offerors proposed solution not achieving its proposed level of performance, the Government may assess strength(s) for aspects of an offerors proposal that decreases risk (has merit), and will assign weakness(s)/significant weakness(s) for aspects of the proposal that increase/appreciably increase the risk of successful contract performance. If the

Government assesses a material failure of the proposal to meet the proposed performance, or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level, it will be considered a proposal deficiency, and the proposal will be ineligible for award no matter how highly rated the Offeror may be under the other Factors or Subfactors.

M.4.1.2 Subfactor 1 Tier 1

M.4.1.2.1 The Government will assess the risk of the Offeror's system not achieving the threshold level of performance for all Tier 1 requirements identified in TAB 1 - Tier 1 Evaluated" of both the Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0009) and the Classified

Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0037) Requirements Compliance Matrix) (See M.4.1.1.5). If the offeror does not propose to meet all Tier 1 requirements, it will be considered to be a deficiency, and the proposal will be ineligible for award, no matter how highly rated the Offeror may be under the other Factors or Subfactors.

M.4.1.2.1.1 The Offeror may receive an additional strength if its approach to meeting requirement number 3.1.2.1 (Soldier Capacity), of the Proposed Stryker MCWS System Performance Specification (Attachment 0001), maintains the Government Furnished Material (GFM) ICVVA1 seats, seat mounts, and seating configuration.

M.4.1.3 Subfactor 2 Tier 2

For this Subfactor, Tier 2 threshold/up-to-objective performance requirements are non-mandatory, highly desired performance capabilities. The following applies to Tier 2 capabilities, which are defined in TAB 3 - Tier 2 Evaluated of both the Requirements

Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0009) and the Classified Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0037):

M.4.1.3.1 The Government will assess the extent of the Offerors proposed performance in relation to the threshold/up to objective capabilities defined in TAB 3 - Tier 2 Evaluated of both the Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0009) and the Classified

Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0037), and the risk of the Offeror's proposed system not achieving its proposed level of performance (See M.4.1.1.5).

M.4.1.3.2 When assessing the extent of the Offerors proposed performance, the Government will assess a proportional weakness for proposed performance that is below threshold. A proportional weakness means that the Government may take into account the margin between proposed below-threshold performance and the threshold when assessing weakness(s).

M.4.1.3.3 When assessing the extent of the Offerors proposed performance, no evaluation credit in the form of a strength will be assessed for proposed performance at threshold or above (up to objective), unless it is supported by credible substantiating data and is assessed at no worse than moderate risk of not achieving the proposed performance level.

7 12

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.4.1.3.3.1 For proposed performance Between Threshold and Objective or at Objective, the Government may assess additional evaluation credit in the form of a proportional strength if the proposed above threshold performance is supported by credible substantiating data and is assessed at no worse than moderate risk of not achieving the proposed performance. A proportional strength means that the

Government may take into account the margin between proposed performance and the threshold when assessing strength(s). The only exception for proportional strength is requirement number 3.2.18 (Situational Awareness), which the Offeror must propose to meet at the

Objective level in order for potential additional evaluation credit in the form of a strength.

M.4.1.4 Subfactor 3 Tier 3

For this Subfactor, Tier 3 threshold/up-to-objective performance requirements are non-mandatory, highly desired performance capabilities. The following applies to Tier 3 capabilities, which are defined in TAB 4 Tier 3 Evaluated of both the Requirements

Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0009) and the Classified Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0037):

M.4.1.4.1 The Government will assess the extent of the Offerors proposed performance in relation to the threshold/up to objective capabilities defined in TAB 4 - Tier 3 Evaluated of both the Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0009) and the Classified

Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0037), and the risk of the Offeror's proposed system not achieving its proposed level of performance (See M.4.1.1.5).

M.4.1.4.2 When assessing the extent of the Offerors proposed performance, the Government will assess a proportional weakness for proposed performance that is below threshold. A proportional weakness means that the Government may take into account the margin between proposed below-threshold performance and the threshold when assessing weakness(s).

M.4.1.4.2.1 The Government will not assess a weakness if the offeror does not propose any objective-only capability (Reference TAB 4

Tier 3 Evaluated of Requirements Compliance Matrix (Attachment 0009), Requirement 3.2.28 (Secondary Optics, 3.2.28.2 and 3.2.28.3 performance), Requirement 3.2.30 (MCWS Turret Survivability, 3.2.30.1 and 3.2.30.2 performance), and Requirement 3.2.16 (Primary Optics,

3.2.16.1.3.2 performance).

M.4.1.4.3 When assessing the extent of the Offerors proposed performance, no evaluation credit in the form of a strength will be assessed for proposed performance at threshold or above (up to objective), unless it is supported by credible substantiating data and is assessed no worse than moderate risk of not achieving the proposed performance level.

M.4.1.4.3.1 For proposed performance Between Threshold and Objective or at Objective, the Government may assess additional evaluation credit in the form of a proportional strength if the proposed threshold (or above) performance is supported by credible substantiating data and is assessed no worse than moderate risk of not achieving the proposed performance. A proportional strength means that the

Government may take into account the margin between proposed performance and the threshold when assessing strength(s). The only exception for proportional strength is requirement numbers 3.2.28 (Secondary Optics, 3.2.28.2 and 3.2.28.3 performance), 3.2.30 (MCWS

Turret Survivability, 3.2.30.1 and 3.2.30.2 performance), 3.2.20 (Hatches), and 3.2.16 (Primary Optics, 3.2.16.1.3.2 (Additional Wider

Optical FOV) performance) which the Offeror must propose to meet at the Objective level in order for potential additional evaluation credit in the form of a strength.

M.4.2 Factor 2, Past Performance

M.4.2.1 The Government will conduct a Performance Confidence Assessment to establish a Confidence Assessment Rating for each Offeror.

The Confidence Assessment Rating assigned will be based on Recent and Relevant Contract performance record(s) and the expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.4.2.2 Contracts submitted in the Past Performance Factor volume of the Offeror's proposal will not be considered if the Government determines them to be not Recent, not Relevant, or lacking any credible past performance information. Offerors without a record of

Recent and Relevant past performance information upon which to base a meaningful confidence assessment will be rated as "Neutral

Confidence", which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

M.4.2.3 The Offeror may also be evaluated on past contract performance information based on internal Government or private source information and reserves the right to use any information received as part of its evaluation. The Government may contact any of the references the Offeror provides, and reserves the right to use any information received as part of its evaluation, and may include additional contracts, beyond those submitted by the Offeror.

M.4.2.4 Past performance which is identified in the Offeror's Past Performance Factor volume but is not supported with the information requested in Section L may be determined not Relevant. In addition, if any other proposal volume indicates the Government will not realize the benefit of the cited past performance during contract performance, then the cited past performance may be determined not

Relevant.

M.4.2.5 In evaluating the Offeror's performance history, the Government may compare the Contractor's deliveries or performance to the

Contract's original delivery or performance schedule, unless the delay was Government-caused. Schedule extensions that were the fault of the Contractor, even if consideration was provided, may be counted against the Offeror.

8 12

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.4.3 Factor 3, Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP)

The Government will evaluate offerors for award by summing the Evaluated Contract Price and the adjustments detailed in M.4.3.2 through

M.4.3.3 below. The VATEP is equal to the offerors Evaluated Contract Price as defined in M.4.3.1.1.1, modified by the GFP Use and

Charges Adjustment (M.4.3.2) and the Data Rights Adjustment (M.4.3.3).

VATEP = Evaluated Contract Price (M.4.3.1.1.1) + GFP Use and Charges Adjustment (M.4.3.2) - Data Rights Adjustment (M.4.3.3)

The VATEP, rather than the offerors Proposed Contract Price, will be used in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value.

M.4.3.1 Contract Price

M.4.3.1.1 The Contract Price evaluation will result in a determination of the Evaluated Contract Price, price reasonableness, cost realism of the cost-reimbursement CLINs only, and unbalanced pricing. The Evaluated Contract Price may differ from the Proposed

Contract Price. The Evaluated Contract Price, rather than the Proposed Contract Price, will be used in calculating the offerors VATEP.

M.4.3.1.1.1 Evaluated Contract Price

The Evaluated Contract Price will consist of the sum of the following:

(a) The Proposed Price for each FFP CLIN as calculated in Attachment 0052 VATEP Workbook, and

(b) The Most Probable Cost to the Government for each cost-reimbursement CLIN. The Most Probable Cost to the Government equals the proposed price as calculated in Attachment 0052 VATEP Workbook, plus or minus any cost realism adjustment(s) in accordance with

M.4.3.1.1.3, and

(c) If applicable, any other price adjustments, for evaluation purposes only, that are required in accordance with the (i) FAR; (ii)

DFARS; or (iii) RFP (to include RFP Attachments).

M.4.3.1.1.1.1 Weighted Average Unit Price

For each CLIN with range pricing (i.e. CLINs 0011, 0012, 0013, 0014, 0015, and 0016), the Government will calculate a weighted average unit price by first multiplying the unit prices proposed for each quantity range by the weighting percentages as stated in Attachment

0052 VATEP Workbook. Weighted average unit prices will be the summation of the proposed unit prices for each range multiplied by the weighting percentages. The proposed price of each such CLIN will then be based on multiplying the weighted average unit price by the quantities as stated in Attachment 0052 VATEP Workbook.

M.4.3.1.1.1.2 Average Unit Price

For each CLIN listed below, the Government will calculate an average unit price by averaging the unit prices proposed for each year as calculated in Attachment 0052 VATEP Workbook. The proposed price of each such CLIN will be based on multiplying the average unit price by the quantities as stated in Attachment 0052 VATEP Workbook.

CLIN Description

003X Operator Manual

004X Field Level Maintenance Manual

005X Battle Damage Assessment and Repair Manual (BDAR)

006X National Maintenance Work Requirements (NMWR)

M.4.3.1.1.2 Price Reasonableness

The Government shall evaluate whether or not the Offerors proposed price is reasonable. 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.

M.4.3.1.1.3 Cost Realism (Cost-Reimbursement CLINs only)

For the cost-reimbursement CLINs only, the evaluation will include a cost realism assessment. Cost Realism will be assessed as described below. Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) may be requested to verify rates and projections.

a. Cost Realism: The Government shall evaluate realism by independently reviewing and evaluating the specific elements of the offerors proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic. The result of the realism evaluation will be a determination of the most probable cost to the Government (which consists of cost and fee) of performance for the offeror.

The most probable cost to the Government will be determined by adjusting the Offeror's proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

M.4.3.1.1.4 Unbalanced Pricing

9 12

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

The Government will evaluate the Offerors proposal for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or ranges is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal the Government assesses to be unbalanced as to price, may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for more information on unbalanced pricing.

M.4.3.2 GFP Use and Charges Adjustment

a) Rent-free use of existing facilities, special test equipment, and/or special tooling, title to which is in the Government or to which the Government has the right to take title (all of which is herein described as property), including rent-free use by prospective subcontractors, will be a consideration in the evaluation of responses to this solicitation. The offeror shall provide with its proposal, the list of Government Furnished Property (GFP), the acquisition cost, age, and type of GFP.

b) For purposes of evaluation only, the evaluation factors for each classification of property, computed as follows, shall be added by the Government to the Evaluated Contract Price. The proposed items shall be computed by multiplying the acquisition cost of each item of property by the rental rates specified below, and then multiplying the product obtained by the number of months of use proposed. A minimum of one month of use shall be required for purposes of evaluation. Fractional portions of a month shall be counted as a full month. The final items shall be separately set forth by the offeror under the proposed price.

c) Monthly Rental Rates:

(1) For land and land preparation, buildings, building installations, and land installations other than those items specified in (2) below: the prevailing commercial rate.

(2) For industrial plant equipment of the types covered by Federal Supply Classification Code Numbers

3405, 3408, 3410, 3411 through 3419 (machine tools), and 3441 through 3449 (secondary metal forming and cutting machines), the following rates shall apply:

Age of Equipment Monthly Rental Rates

0-2 years 3.00%

Over 2 to 3 years 2.00%

Over 3 to 6 years 1.50%

Over 6 to 10 years 1.00%

Over 10 years 0.75%

(3) For personal property and equipment not covered in (1) and (2) above (including all production equipment not in the Federal Supply

Classification Codes set forth above, and including special tooling and special test equipment), the following rates shall apply:

-- Two percent (2.00%) per month for electronic test equipment and automotive equipment;

-- One percent (1.00%) per month for special tooling and for all other property and equipment.

d) If any item of property is to be used on other work for which use has been authorized during the period such property is requested for use on any contract resulting from this solicitation, the evaluation factors shall be calculated in accordance with the following:

the acquisition cost of each item of property shall be multiplied by the rental rates specified for the applicable classification of property set forth above, and the product obtained shall then be multiplied by the number of months of rent-free use requested. The resulting product shall be multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the amount of use of the property proposed under this solicitation, and the denominator of which is the sum of the previously authorized use of the property during the period of proposed use and the use proposed under this solicitation. The measurement unit for determining the amount of use to be considered in establishing the fraction referred to in the foregoing calculation shall be direct labor hours, sales, hours of use, or any other measurement unit which will result in an equitable apportionment of the factor. The measurement unit used and the amount of respective uses shall be set forth in sufficient detail to support the proration for each item of property.

e) For the purposes of determining the evaluation factors set forth above, the following definitions apply:

(1) The term acquisition cost means the total cost to the Government for an item of property, including the cost of (i) transportation,

(ii) installation, (iii) accessories to be used with the item, and (iv) any rebuilding and modernization which has enhanced the original capability of the item;

(2) The age of an item of property shall be based on the year in which it was manufactured, with an annual birthday on 1 January of each year thereafter. On 1 January following the date of manufacture, the item shall be considered one year old; and on each succeeding

January 1st, it shall become one year older (thus, an item manufactured on 15 July 1978 would be one year old on 1 January 1979, and over two years old on and after 1 January 1980).

f) Where this solicitation provides that the property is offered for use on an as-is basis, F.O.B. loading dock at present location, the

Government shall add to the Evaluated Cost, in addition to the evaluation factors described above, a factor, for purposes of evaluation, which will be composed of the costs to the Government of making such property available at the F.O.B. point, including the costs of

10 12

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

disconnection, preparation for shipment, and placement on the loading dock.

M.4.3.3 Data Rights Adjustment:

M.4.3.3.1 The proposed Data Rights Adjustment is automatically calculated within the worksheet entitled, "Summary" of the VATEP Workbook

(Attachment 0052).

If the offeror AGREES to deliver the technical data and AGREES to grant and does hereby grant the appropriate data rights to the

Government as outlined in Section C Paragraph 3.6.2 (and its subparagraphs), the Offeror should select Yes in the Data Rights Adj tab of the VATEP Workbook (Attachment 0052) in order to be eligible to receive a Data Rights Adjustment. Only proposals that propose YES in the in the Data Rights Adj tab of the VATEP Workbook (Attachment 0052) are eligible to receive a Data Rights Adjustment. Proposals that propose YES in the in the Data Rights Adj tab of the VATEP Workbook (Attachment 0052) will receive a Data Rights Adjustment in the amount of $25 million, calculated within the worksheet entitled, "Summary" of the VATEP Workbook (Attachment 0052) unless anywhere else in the proposal indicates the offeror takes exception to Section C Paragraph 3.6.2 (and its subparagraphs).

If the offeror DOES NOT agree to deliver the technical data and grant the appropriate data rights as outlined in Section C Paragraph

3.6.2 (and its subparagraphs), the Offeror should select No in the Data Rights Adj tab of the VATEP Workbook (Attachment 0052). If the

Offeror proposes No or submits a blank `Data Rights Adj tab in its proposed VATEP Workbook (Attachment 0052), then Section C Paragraph

3.6.2 will not be included in any resulting contract, and the Offeror will not receive a Data Rights Adjustment.

M.4.3.3.2 Proposing Data and Background Patent Rights

Offerors are highly encouraged to propose additional Technical Data Rights within this solicitation. The Government is emphasizing negotiating and contracting for better than limited and restricted rights (e.g., Government Purpose Rights, specially negotiated licenses offering a Government-Purpose-Rights-license with an extended term, etc.) for the requested technical data in Section C.3.6.2.

An Offeror that declines to propose for the Government to acquire Data Rights for technical data that are greater than the rights to which the Government is already entitled, will not receive a Data Rights adjustment. An Offeror that does not propose to sell or otherwise relinquish additional rights in technical data related to items, components, or process developed exclusively at private expenses will not be rejected solely because of failure to do so.

M.4.4 Factor 4, Small Business Participation

M.4.4.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of the Offerors approach to achieving the Government's objective of providing 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. As part of this assessment, the Government will consider the Offerors performance in complying with past Small Business Subcontracting Plans if they were required on prior contracts. Please note the solicitation goals are expressed as a percentage of 'Total Contract Amount', which is defined for this Small Business Participation Factor in Section

L.4.4.2 (c). The Government's small business participation goals for this solicitation are:

9.2 % Small Business (SB)

1.4 % Small Disadvantaged Business (SB)

1.4 % Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB)

0.8 % Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB)

0.8 % Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

0.8 % Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

For Other Than Small Business Offerors ONLY, the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) goal is BOTH of the following:

1.4 % of Total Contract Amount

5.0 % of Total Subcontracting Amount

M.4.4.2 Assessment of Proposed Goals Above or Below Each of the 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.4.4.3 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.

11 12

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

12 12