A07_W909MY-16-R-H002_Amendment_0003.pdf

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

2. Amendment/Modification No.

3. Effective Date

4. Requisition/Purchase Req No.

5. Project No. (If applicable)

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

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

9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.

9B. Dated (See Item 11)

10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

12. Accounting And Appropriation Data (If required)

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

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

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

The Contract/Order No. In Item 10A.

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

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

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

D. Other (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

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

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE SCHEDULE

X

Fixed Price Incentive (Cost Based)

0003 2016JUN23

W909MY

ARMY CONTRACTING CMD-APG

10205 BURBECK RD

FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5863

PAUL EASTON

EMAIL: PAUL.A.EASTON.CIV@MAIL.MIL

W909MY-16-R-H002

2016MAY25

X

X 2016JUL11 03:00pm

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 13

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: PAUL EASTON

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCAP-CCV/(703)704-0834

Type of Contract 1: Fixed Price Incentive (Cost Based)

Type of Contract 2: Firm Fixed Price

Kind of Contract: Supply Contracts and Priced Orders

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

a. The purpose of this Amendment (0003) is to respond to additional Industry questions regarding this Request for Proposal (RFP). The

Governments responses can be found in the excel spreadsheet, titled W909MY-16-R-H002 AMD 0003 Q&A, posted to Federal Business

Opportunities (FBO.gov)

b. The Governments responses may have changed the RFP and its corresponding attachments. Industry is advised to review this RFP

Amendment (0003) in its entirety.

c. Section M of the RFP has been revised to include CLINs 1009, 1010, 2009, 2010, 3009, 3010, 4009, 4010, 5009, 5010, 6009, and 6010 in

Sections M.B and M.C specifically.

d. Section A Narrative A0001 parts 5, and 8 are revised, in order to comply with CLIN structure change that was made with Amendment

0002, as follows:

5. The following illustrates the relationship of Contract Line Items (CLINs) to Phases:

First Article Testing (FAT) Phase - CLINs 0001 through 0006

Ordering Period 1 (28 months) - CLINs 1001 through 1010

Option Ordering Period 1 (12 months) - CLINs 2001 through 2010

Option Ordering Period 2 (12 months) - CLINs 3001 through 3010

Option Ordering Period 3 (12 months) - CLINs 4001 through 4010

Option Ordering Period 4 (12 months) - CLINs 5001 through 5010

Option Ordering Period 5 (12 months) - CLINs 6001 through 6010

8. Contract Types:

CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0006 shall be performed on a Fixed Price Incentive (Firm Target) basis. The ceiling price is 'no more than 120% of the target cost' of CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0006 and 100% of CLIN 0005 and the share ratio is 50/50 for overruns and 70/30 (Contract/Government) for underruns. CLIN 0005 and SLIN A001 shall be performed on a Firm Fixed Price basis.

CLINs 1001-1010, 2001-2010, 3001-3010, 4001-4010, 5001-5010, and 6001-6010 if exercised, shall be performed on Firm Fixed Price

Basis.

e. The proposal submission cutoff date and time for this RFP have been changed to 11 July 2016 1500.

f. Except for stated herein all other terms and conditions of the RFP remain unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0004 ***

2 13

W909MY-16-R-H002 0003

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 STATEMENT OF WORK 23-JUN-2016 161 EMAIL

Attachment 0002 RECAPITALIZATION PURCHASE DESCRIPTION 23-JUN-2016 116 EMAIL

3 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

The award will be made to the single responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be the best overall (i.e. best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the five (5) evaluation factors; Technical, Price Realism, Price, Past Performance, and Small Business (SB) Participation Plan.

The Technical Factor is more important than the Price Realism Factor. The Price Realism Factor is more important than the Price

Factor. The Price factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the SB Participation Plan Factor. All non-price factors combined are significantly more important than the price factor.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for the Technical subfactors and the Small

Business Factor. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price proposal. In accordance with

FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, Offeror's are cautioned that the initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a technical, price realism, and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306(d), if it is determined to be in the Government's best interest to do so.

Proposals that do not include all the information and materials prescribed in Section L of the solicitation, may be disqualified from consideration for award upon receipt without further review by the Government.

B. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

1. Factor I - Technical: The Technical Factor is further divided into the following three (3) Sub-factors, which will be separately evaluated:

T1 Modified Work Order (MWO) Approach, Specific Performance Parameters and Production Capabilities will be evaluated based upon the Offeror's demonstrated capability to:

(1) deliver a detailed in-depth MWO design concept and component layout complying with SOW paragraphs 3.1.1 through 3.1.4,

(2) achieve the High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) requirements per PD 6115-0132 paragraph 3.10.

(3) achieve production deliveries of up to a basic quantity of 6 total power units on a monthly basis for a period of up to 12-months beginning within 6-months after receipt of a delivery order.

T2 Integrated Product Support (IPS) / Engineering Data, will be evaluated based upon the Offeror's demonstrated capability to:

(1) Maximize part commonality and comply with the system Line Replacement Unit concept per PD 6115-0132 paragraphs 3.5.26 and 3.13.2.d.

(2) Deliver a Maintenance Plan fully compliant with SOW paragraph 3.14.1.1.

(3) Achieve compliance with the 750 hour Mean Time Between Essential Function Failures (MTBEFF) at an 80 percent confidence level as required in the PD 6115-0132 paragraph 3.2.2.

T3 Program Management will be evaluated based on the offeror's proposed Program Management Plan in terms of its demonstrated capability to meet contract schedule and performance requirements while minimizing risk of unsuccessful performance.

Weighting Criteria: Technical Sub-factor T1 (MWO Approach, Specific Performance Parameters and Production Capabilities) is more important than Technical Sub-factor T2 (Integrated Product Support (IPS)/Engineering Data) and T3 (Program Management). Technical Sub-factors T2 and T3 are of equal importance. Each technical sub-factor will be evaluated based on all relevant information furnished in each offeror's proposal.

2. Factor II Price Realism: The Price Realism Factor is intended to identify proposals whose fixed pricing is deemed to be unrealistically low and indicative of insufficient resources being applied to the contract to assure successful contract performance.

Price Realism will be evaluated by performing separate comparisons of proposed Production pricing (CLINs 1001-6010) and proposed first article pricing (CLINs 0001-0006) against mean average pricing baselines established by the Government. A single consolidated adjectival rating will be assigned as explained in this factor and in Section C.2 below, based on the degree of deviations identified

4 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

through the baseline pricing comparisons; and considering any detailed and credible explanations the price proposal offers to substantiate the realism of the pricing proposed and the feasibility of any unique approaches to achieve proposed pricing levels while still meeting contract requirements. No adjustments to proposed pricing will be made for any purpose in the Price Realism evaluation.

Further explanation regarding the Price Realism evaluation is provided in the Evaluation Approach Section, C.2 below.

No sub-factors.

3. Factor III Price: This solicitation will result in award of a single award IDIQ contract with a Fixed Price Incentive Firm

Target Contractor First Article Build / Test Phase with Firm Fixed Price Production Phase Options for the MEP-PU-810 C and D Models.

Each offeror's total evaluated price will be derived using the approach at Section C.3, herein. Fairness and reasonableness of proposed pricing will be confirmed using any or all applicable techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

No sub-factors.

4. Factor IV - Past Performance: Each offeror's past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment, using the approach at Section C.4 herein.

No sub-factors.

5. Factor V Small Business Participation Plan: The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions, using the approach at Section C.5 herein.

No sub-factors.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals will be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST):

1. Technical Factor Evaluation Approach. The overarching evaluation approach for all technical subfactors is as follows:

a. Understanding of the Problem. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of all features involved in solving the problem and meeting the requirements; and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

TABLE 1. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerted below focuses on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the

Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror's proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

Technical Rating Definitions

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 contract

5 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

performance is high.

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

2. Price Realism Factor Evaluation Approach.

The Price Realism evaluation will utilize the following process:

(1) The Government will calculate two Price Baselines: one for Production CLINS (CLINs 1001-6010) (PB-P) and one for First Article Test

CLINs (CLINS_0001-0006) (PB-FA). These baselines will be calculated by determining a Mean Average Total Price figure for the two identified groups of CLINs based on the initial proposal pricing for all proposals receiving a rating of Acceptable or higher under

Factor 1, Technical, following initial proposal evaluations. Pricing contained in initial proposals rated lower than Acceptable in the initial proposals evaluations will not be considered in calculating the PB-P or PB-FA baselines.

(2) After determining the PB-P and PB-FA baselines, the Government will review each proposal to calculate the offeror's total proposed pricing for both Production CLINS (CLINS 1001-6010) and First Article Test CLINS (CLINS 0001-0006); will compare that pricing against the respective PB-P and PB-FA baselines established in (1), above. For proposals whose Production or First Article CLIN totals fall below either the PB-P or PB-FA baselines, the Government will calculate the difference using a standard deviation analysis (details and examples provided later in this section).

(3) Proposals will be assigned a rating based on the Price Realism Ratings chart appearing later in this section. For proposals whose proposed total Production or First Article pricing is a standard deviation of ONE (1) or greater below the PB-P or PB-FA baselines, the

Government in generating the Price Realism rating will review and consider narrative in the offeror's Price Proposal that directly addresses the realism of the pricing proposed. To the extent that the narrative credibly substantiates the realism of the proposed pricing and the feasibility of any unique approaches to achieve proposed pricing levels while still meeting contract requirements, the

Government may adjust the price realism rating upward.

(4) Should the Government elect to open discussions, Price Realism ratings assigned to individual proposals shall be reviewed and adjusted as appropriate based on changes to pricing contained in revised proposals, however, the PB-P and PB-FA baselines used to evaluate Price Realism for all revised proposals in shall be the same PB-P and PB-FA baselines developed during initial proposal evaluations, and based on initial proposal pricing.

Standard Deviation Analysis: The Standard deviation will be calculated by determining the mean average pricing of CLINS 1001-6010

(Production CLINS) and CLINS 0001-0006 (First Article CLINS),taking into account the pricing of all initial proposals rated "Acceptable" under Factor 1, Technical. Then, the Government will determine the variance of each proposal from the mean average using the formulas and charts below. For the purpose of assessing price realism, only those offers that are priced below the mean will be subject to the standard deviation assessment. For example, Offeror Delta from Mean Analyzed/Not Analyzed

A $25 -$2.6 Analyzed

B $14 -$13.6 Analyzed

C $16 -$11.6 Analyzed

D $50 +$22.4 Not Analyzed

E $33 +$5.4 Not Analyzed

Mean = sum of offerors / sample size (n)

Mean = 25+14+16+50+33 = 138.5 / 5= $27.6

Standard Deviation (SD) = square root (sum of (each offeror's proposed price Mean)^2 / sample size)

SD = ((25-27.6)^2 + (14-27.6)^2 + (16-27.6)^2 + (50-27.6)^2 + (33-27.6)^2) = Square root (857.2 / 5) = 13.09351

Standard Deviation: $13.09351

Please see Attachment 0009 for the example Standard Deviation chart.

TABLE 2. PRICE REALISM RATINGS

Price Realism Rating Definitions

6 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Rating Description

Low Risk The proposed price either is not below the average mean pricing of all acceptable proposals for both PB-P and PB-FA or is less than one standard deviation below the average mean pricing of all acceptable proposals for both PB-P or PB-FA.

Medium Risk The proposed price falls within between one and two standard deviations below the average mean pricing of all acceptable proposals as reflected in either PB-P or PB-FA. The rating may be adjusted upward if the proposal provides detailed and credible explanation that directly addresses, and establishes, the realism of the pricing proposed and the feasibility of any unique approaches to achieve proposed pricing levels while still meeting contract requirements.

High Risk The proposed price falls two or more standard deviations below the average mean pricing of all acceptable proposals as reflected in either PB-P or PB-FA. The rating may be adjusted upward if the proposal provides detailed and credible explanation that directly addresses, and establishes, the realism of the pricing proposed and the feasibility of any unique approaches to achieve proposed pricing levels while still meeting contract requirements.

3. Price Factor Evaluation Approach.

a. The Government will evaluate offers to determine their Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP is calculated by subtracting an Adjusted

TDP Price from the Evaluated Contract Price (ECP).

b. Total Evaluated Price Equation

TEP = Evaluated Contract Price - Adjusted TDP Price

The TEP may differ from an Offeror's Proposed Contract Price. The TEP, rather than the Offeror's Proposed Contract Price, will be used in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value.

c. Evaluated Contract Price

The Evaluated Contract Price (ECP) will represent the sum total of all evaluated prices for Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) and

Subline Item Numbers (SLINs) (0001-0003, 0005-0006, A001, 1001-1010, 2001-2010, 3001-3010, 4001-4010, and 5001-5010, 6001-6010) in

Attachment 0008 Price Model. The ECP evaluation will consider the information submitted in response to Section L including the top-level spreadsheets. Prices will be evaluated to confirm that they are reasonable and realistic, as per item d. below; the evaluation of the

Offeror's Proposed Contract Price will include consideration of the reasonableness of the proposed Fixed Price Incentive Firm Target

(FPIFT) and Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs/Sub-CLINs.

d. Price Reasonableness

The Government shall evaluate whether or not the Offeror's proposed prices are reasonable in accordance with the definition in FAR

15.404-1 and 31.201-3. 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.

e. The Government is responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of the offered prices in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The

Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all Contract Line Item Numbers and Sub-line Item Numbers (0001-

6010) as described below. Offerors shall provide prices for the CLINs/SLINs as indicated in Section B (Supplies or Services and

Prices/Costs) of the Solicitation.

f. First Article Phase (Fixed Price Incentive (Firm Target)). The evaluated price for the First Article phase will be the ceiling price for CLINs 0001-0006. The ceiling price for First Article will be calculated as 120% of the target cost set forth in CLINs 0001-0006.

Requirements of the First Article phase can be found in the SOW, paragraph 3.1.

g. Technical Data Package (TDP)

1) Evaluated TDP Prices: The evaluated TDP price included in the Total Evaluated Price will equal the proposed TDP price as adjusted by the Government, described below (See Section M paragraph g.2).

2) TDP Adjustment: The TDP Adjustment will evaluate information submitted in response to Section L, Volume III, paragraph b, to assess the Government anticipated future savings based on the degree to which the offeror's proposed data rights support future full and open competitive acquisitions. The resulting Adjusted TDP Price will be subtracted from the offeror's Evaluated Contract Price as part of the Total Evaluated Price calculation to credit the Offeror for future savings the Government may realize during future competitions through use of a competitive TDP.

7 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

3) Adjusted TDP Price Formula: The Adjusted TDP Price equation is (Z + Z - Y) *Y, where:

X = Offeror's Proposed TDP Price

Y = Competitive Utility Multiplier (See Section M paragraph g.6)

Z = Government Baseline Savings (see Section M paragraph g.5)

NOTE: The Adjusted TDP Price will be in FY16$. If the Offeror receives a Competitve Utility Multiplier of zero, described below, then the adjustment formula will equal zero and the Total Evaluated Price will equal the Evaluated Contract Price.

4) Proposed TDP Price: The Offeror's proposed TDP price will be evaluated as part of the Evaluated Contract Price calculated under Section M paragraph c. The TDP adjustment conducted in accordance with Section M paragraph g will not be considered in the

Evaluated Contract Price calculated under Section M paragraph c. The Offeror's proposed TDP Price (FY16$) is subtracted from the Total

Evaluated Cost/Price as part of the TEP equation described in Section M paragraph c.

5) Government Baseline Savings: The Governments baseline savings is $3,556,000.00 FY16$. This baseline savings represents the savings the Government expects to yield if the Offeror's proposed TDP supports future full and open competitive acquisitions. The baselines savings is calculated as a five percent savings on the Government anticipated future acquisitions. In the event the Offeror's

TDP Proposed Price is greater than or equal to $ 3,556,000.00, the TDP Adjustment will equal the Offeror's proposed TDP price as the

Government will not expect to yield any savings and therefore the Government will not benefit from any increased competitive utility.

6) Competitive Utility Multiplier: The competitive utility multiplier represents an assessment of the capability of the

Government to utilize the proposed TDP for future competition (i.e., Competitive Utility), and will be applied based on the evaluation of Part 1 (TDP BOM). The Government will not perform a risk assessment as part of the Competitive Utility Multiplier evaluation. The evaluation will take into account the quantity of components which the Offeror identifies as OEM Source Controlled, the specific components which the Offeror proposes to be OEM Source Controlled and the impact of those components to competitive utility and future competitive procurements. In general, Source Controlled components are considered less advantageous to the Government and competitive rights components (Government Purpose or Unlimited Rights) are considered more advantageous to the Government. Proposing a TDP with significant quantities of OEM Source Controlled components, or with key generator components identified as OEM Source Controlled, generally will result in a lower competitive utility multiplier due to the additional reverse engineering and/or qualification testing necessary to attain secondary sources to support competition, which results in degraded competitive utility. There are four possible competitive utility multipliers: 0.00, 0.33, 0.67, and 1.00. Descriptions of each multiplier are as follows:

(a) 0.00 Multiplier: Represents a proposed TDP that has significantly degraded to no competitive utility due to any of the following criteria:

* The Offeror declines to propose a TDP.

* The proposed TDP features significant quantities of OEM Source Controlled components which would require significant reverse engineering and/or qualification testing for secondary sources to permit future competition.

* The proposed TDP features significant quantities of key generator components as OEM Source Controlled which would require significant reverse engineering and/or qualification testing for secondary sources to permit future competition.

As stated above, a 0.00 Multiplier results in no adjustment to the TDP Price.

(b) 0.33 Multiplier: Represents a proposed TDP that has moderately degraded competitive utility due to any of the following criteria:

* The proposed TDP features moderate quantities of OEM Source Controlled components which would require moderate reverse engineering and/or qualification testing for secondary sources to permit future competition when purchased.

* The proposed TDP features moderate quantities of key generator components as OEM Source Controlled which would require moderate reverse engineering and/or qualification testing for secondary sources to permit future competition when purchased.

(c) 0.67 Multiplier: Represents a proposed TDP that has slightly degraded competitive utility due to any of the following criteria:

* The proposed TDP features limited quantities of OEM Source Controlled components which would require limited reverse engineering and/or qualification testing for secondary sources to permit future competition when purchased.

* The proposed TDP features limited quantities of key generator components as OEM Source Controlled which would require limited reverse engineering and/or qualification testing for secondary sources to permit future competition when purchased.

(d) 1.00 Multiplier: Represents a proposed TDP that has full competitive utility due to the following criteria:

* The proposed TDP features no OEM Source Controlled components, which as a result would not require any reverse engineering and/or qualification testing for secondary sources, and thus would immediately permit future competition when purchased.

7) Declining to Propose Data Rights: An Offeror declining to propose a TDP for the Government to acquire rights in technical data greater than the rights to which the Government is already entitled, i.e., declining to provide a way to give the Government rights to support competition, will not receive a TDP adjustment. In accordance with 10 USC 2320 and DFARS 227.7103-1 Offerors are not required, either as a condition of being responsive to a solicitation or as a condition for award, to sell or otherwise relinquish to the Government any rights in technical data related to items, components or processes developed exclusively at private expense. An

Offeror that does not propose to sell or otherwise relinquish any rights in technical data related to items, components or process

8 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

developed exclusively at private expense will still be considered responsive.

h. Production Options (Firm Fixed Price). Requirements for the Production Phase are located in the SOW, paragraph 3.2. Section B

(Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs) of the Solicitation includes range quantities for each ordering period; the total evaluated price for each ordering period will be calculated by computing a weighted average price and multiplying the weighted average price by the evaluation quantity specified below. The total evaluated price will be the sum of the evaluated prices for the First Article Phase and the Production Phase option and will be computed as follows:

1) For each CLIN that requires range quantity unit prices (MEP-PU-810C and their respective warranties, winterization kits and paint, and MEP-PU-810D and their respective warranties, winterization kits and paint), the total evaluated price will be calculated by computing a weighted average unit price and multiplying the weighted average unit price by the evaluation quantity listed in paragraph k below. The specific evaluation weights are listed in paragraph j below. An example of this methodology follows:

Quantity Range Evaluation Weight Proposed Unit Price

1-4 15% $1000.00

5-19 25% $900.00

20-50 60% $800.00

Calculation:

Step 1. Multiply the proposed range unit price by the evaluation factor.

Unit Price Evaluation Weight Adjusted Unit Price

$1000.00 15% $150.00

$900.00 25% $225.00

$800.00 60% $480.00

Step 2. Add the adjusted unit prices together to calculate the total weighted average unit price.

Adjusted Unit Prices

$150.00

$225.00

$480.00

$855.00 Total weighted average unit price

Step 3. Multiply the total weighted average unit price by the evaluation quantity.

Total Weighted Average Unit Price Evaluation Qty Total Evaluated Price

$855.00 X 100 $85,500.00

2) All CLINs require one line item price for the Production Phase. The evaluated price will be the proposed price.

i. Evaluation weights. These weights represent the Governments best estimate of the probability that orders will be placed in the various range quantities during the Production option. These are estimates for evaluation purposes only and are not to be considered firm requirements.

1) For the DPGDS C model Prime Power Unit plus basic warranty (SOW 3.13.6.2), winterization kit and paint, the three quantity ranges specified in Section B of the solicitation, the weights are, in descending order (from the lowest quantity range to the highest quantity range), 15%, 25%, and 60%.

2) For the DPGDS D model Prime Power Unit plus basic warranty (SOW 3.13.6.2), winterization kit, and paint the three quantity ranges specified in Section B of the solicitation, the weights are, in descending order (from the lowest quantity range to the highest quantity range) 15%, 25% and 60%.

3) For the DPGDS Mission Readiness Spares Package (MRSP) Kits, the two quantity ranges specified in Section B of the solicitation, the weights are in descending order (from the lowest quantity range to the highest quantity range) 40% and 60%.

j. Evaluation Quantities for the Production option:

1) The evaluation quantities for the DPGDS MEP 810 C model set plus basic warranty and paint, CLINs 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001 and 6001, that have range quantities with a maximum of up to 50 units are as follows:

CLIN Qty

1001 44

2001 18

9 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

3001 16

4001 14

5001 12

6001 11

2) The evaluation quantities for the DPGDS MEP 810 D model set plus basic warranty and paint, CLINs 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002, 5002 and 6002, that have range quantities with a maximum of up to 50 units are as follows:

CLIN Qty

1002 28

2002 12

3002 8

4002 6

5002 6

6002 5

3) The evaluation quantity for the investment spares: Engines, Generators, Fuel Tanks, Right and Left ATAACs or cooling systems IAW SOW 3.11.1, CLIN 1003, 2003, 3003, 4003, 5003 and 6003, is one (1) per CLIN.

4) The evaluation quantity for the initial spares and repair parts, IAW SOW 3.11.2, CLIN 1004, 2004, 3004, 4004, 5004 and 6004, is one (1) per CLIN.

5) The evaluation quantity for the 60 day Mission Readiness Spare Package (MRSP) Kit, IAW SOW 3.11.3, CLIN 1005, 2005, 3005, 4005, 5005 and 6005,that have range quantities with a maximum range quantity of 10, is 10 per CLIN.

6) The evaluation quantity for the winterization kits, CLINs 1006, 2006, 3006, 4006, 5006, and 6007 is as follows:

CLIN Qty

1006 72

2006 30

3006 24

4006 20

5006 18

6006 16

7) The evaluation quantity for the three (3) year extended warranty (SOW 3.13.7), CLIN 1007, 2007, 3007, 4007, 5007 and

6007, is as follows:

CLIN Qty

1007 72

2007 30

3007 24

4007 20

5007 18

6007 16

k. The Government may determine in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g) that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items, sub-line items or years, and this lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, the price of one or more contract line items are significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government reserves the right to request whatever cost and pricing data is necessary for analysis, when unbalanced bidding is suspected.

4. Past Performance Factor Evaluation Approach.

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror's record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

b. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in

Appendix C.

c. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror's (and major subcontractors) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror's overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Relevancy is defined as a contract that is similar in scope and magnitude to the DPGDS PPU Recapitalization effort and in complexity to the recapitalization effort as described in the SOW and PD, to include, but not limited to the creation of the MWO or

10 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

production of generator sets. The Offeror's record of satisfying customer requirements in the areas described below will be considered:

1) conforming to specifications and standards of good workmanship; 2) project management; 3) adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; 4) commitment to customer satisfaction and business-like concern for the interests of its customers; 5) forecasting and containing costs on any previously performed incentive target contracts. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an unknown confidence rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 335312. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date.

d. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are similar in scope and magnitude to the

DPGDS PPU Recapitalization effort and in complexity to the recapitalization effort as described in the SOW and PD, to include, but not limited to the creation of the MWO or production of generator sets relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

e. The past performance factor considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

1) Relevancy. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror's past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

TABLE 3. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Definitions

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Assess the quality of the offeror's past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

3) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

TABLE 4. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings Definitions

Rating Definition

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.

11 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has 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 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.

5. Small Business Participation Plan Evaluation Approach.

All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on their consideration of the DOD goals in paragraph g below, the level of small business commitment that they are demonstrating for the proposed acquisition, and their prior level of commitment to utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts. The following shall evidence small business participation:

a. The extent to which categories of small business firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals.

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable Commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones). Small Business Offerors will receive Small Business credit at the prime level weighed equally with enforceable commitments with Small Business Subcontractors.

c. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform.

d. The realism of the Offeror's small business approach in their proposal.

e. Past Performance of the Offerors in complying with the requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small

Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

f. The extent of proposed participation of such firms in terms of the total value of the acquisition.

g. The extent to which the Offerors provide detailed explanations /documentation supporting their proposed participation percentages or lack thereof. The DOD has established small business goals as an assistance to assure small business receives a fair proportion of DOD awards. The goals are as follows: Small Business: 21.3% of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business:

5%* of the total contract value; Women-Owned Small Business: 5% of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone

(HUB Zone) Business: 3% of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business: 3% of the total contract value; Service Disabled

Veteran Owned Small Business: 3% of the total contract value (Note, for example, that a participation plan, which reflects 2% of the total contract value for Woman-Owned Small Business, would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal.)

TABLE 5. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN RATINGS

Small Business Participation Plan Factor Ratings Definitions

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

12 13

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

is high.

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

Proposal is unawardable.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0002 ***

13 13