W911QY-17-R-0003_ESPS_Solicitation_Amendment_0007.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Add additional production pricing tables in section B.2.1 for each year.

2. Add CLINS 0031 through 0035 for spare and replacement parts.

3. Add pricing tables in section B.2.4 for the spare and replacement parts.

4. Add spare and replacement parts language to section C.6.

5. Update section M.3.5.4 The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to inlcude the new Spare and Replacement Part CLINS.

6. Update FAR Clause 52.211-9 Desired and Required Time of Delivery to inlcude include the new Spare and Replacement Part CLINS.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 30

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Dec-2016

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W911QY-17-R-0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-Oct-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer 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 amendment; (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 APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) 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 date, 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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

22-Dec-2016

CODE

W6QK ACC-APG NATICK

CONTRACTING DIVISION

BLDG 1 GENERAL GREENE AVENUE

NATICK MA 01760-5011

W911QY 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W911QY-17-R-0003

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0031 is added as follows:

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES MAX

QUANTITY

UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0031 Each Spare and Replacement Panel

FFP

ESPS spare and replacement panel IAW section C.6. Offerors shall propose pricing in section B.2.4 of the solicitation.

FOB: Destination

MAX

NET AMT

CLIN 0032 is added as follows:

UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0032 Each Spare and Replacement Support Strut

FFP

ESPS spare and replacement support strut IAW section C.6. Offerors shall propose pricing in section B.2.4 of the solicitation.

CLIN 0033 is added as follows:

UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0033 Each Spare and Replacement Toggle Handle

FFP

ESPS spare and replacement toggle handle with wing nut IAW section C.6.

Offerors shall propose pricing in section B.2.4 of the solicitation.

CLIN 0034 is added as follows:

UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0034 Each Spare and Replacement Ground Anchor

FFP

ESPS spare and replacement ground anchor bracket IAW section C.6. Offerors shall propose pricing in section B.2.4 of the solicitation.

CLIN 0035 is added as follows:

UNIT UNIT PRICE MAX AMOUNT

0035 Each Spare and Replacement Tent Peg

FFP

ESPS spare and replacement Tent Peg IAW section C.6. Offerors shall propose pricing in section B.2.4 of the solicitation.

The following have been modified:

STEP LADDER PRICING

B.2 STEPLADDER PRICING

B.2.1 Proposed stepladder pricing for CLIN 0002 (Production Units)

Year 1 Production

Range Quantities

From: To: Unit Price:

1 20 $

21 50 $

51 500 $

501 5000 $

Year 2 Production

1 20 $

21 50 $

Year 3 Production

1 20 $

21 50 $

Year 4 Production

1 20 $

21 50 $

Year 5 Production

1 20 $

21 50 $

B.2.2 Proposed Labor Rates for CLIN 0003 (Contractor Support)

Year 1 Contractor Support

Labor Categories

Proposed Fully Burdened

Hourly Rates

Technician I $

Technician II $

Technician III $

Technician IV $

Technician V $

Engineer I $

Engineer II $

Engineer III $

Engineer IV $

Engineer V $

Year 2 Contractor Support

Proposed Fully Burdened

Hourly Rates

Technician I $

Technician II $

Technician III $

Technician IV $

Technician V $

Engineer I $

Engineer II $

Engineer III $

Year 3 Contractor Support

Proposed Fully Burdened

Hourly Rates

Technician I $

Technician II $

Technician III $

Technician IV $

Technician V $

Engineer I $

Engineer II $

Engineer III $

Year 4 Contractor Support

Proposed Fully Burdened

Hourly Rates

Technician I $

Technician II $

Technician III $

Technician IV $

Technician V $

Engineer I $

Engineer II $

Engineer III $

Year 5 Contractor Support

Proposed Fully Burdened

Hourly Rates

Technician I $

Technician II $

Technician III $

Technician IV $

Technician V $

Engineer I $

Engineer II $

Engineer III $

B.2.3 Proposed Labor Rates for CLIN 0028 (Future Product Development)

Year 1 Future Product Development

Proposed Fully Burdened

Hourly Rates

Manager $

Draftsman $

Trainer $

Tech Writer $

Administrative Support $

Technician I $

Technician II $

Technician III $

Technician IV $

Technician V $

Engineer I $

Engineer II $

Engineer III $

Year 2 Future Product Development

Proposed Fully Burdened

Hourly Rates

Manager $

Draftsman $

Trainer $

Tech Writer $

Administrative Support $

Technician I $

Technician II $

Technician III $

Technician IV $

Technician V $

Engineer I $

Engineer II $

Engineer III $

Year 3 Future Product Development

Proposed Fully Burdened

Hourly Rates

Manager $

Draftsman $

Trainer $

Tech Writer $

Administrative Support $

Technician I $

Technician II $

Technician III $

Technician IV $

Technician V $

Engineer I $

Engineer II $

Engineer III $

Year 4 Future Product Development

Proposed Fully Burdened

Hourly Rates

Manager $

Draftsman $

Trainer $

Tech Writer $

Administrative Support $

Technician I $

Technician II $

Technician III $

Technician IV $

Technician V $

Engineer I $

Engineer II $

Engineer III $

Year 5 Future Product Development

Proposed Fully Burdened

Hourly Rates

Manager $

Draftsman $

Trainer $

Tech Writer $

Administrative Support $

Technician I $

Technician II $

Technician III $

Technician IV $

Technician V $

Engineer I $

Engineer II $

Engineer III $

B.2.4 Proposed pricing for CLINS 0031 to 0035 (Spare and Replacement Parts)

Year 1 Spare and Replacement Parts:

Spare and Replacement Parts

CLIN #: Part Description: Unit Price:

CLIN 0031

Panels

CLIN 0032

Support Sturt

CLIN 0033

Toggle Handle With Wing Nut

CLIN 0034

Ground Anchor Bracket

CLIN 0035

Year 2 Spare and Replacement Parts:

Year 3 Spare and Replacement Parts:

Panels $

Year 4 Spare and Replacement Parts:

Year 5 Spare and Replacement Parts:

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

STATEMENT OF WORK

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/WORK STATEMENT

C.1 BACKGROUND: The intent of this contract is to provide for the fabrication of the Expeditionary Shelter Protection System (ESPS). The ESPS shall be a ballistic panel and attachment system that protects Warfighters living and working in military shelter systems. The ESPS would improve expeditionary Warfighter survivability by providing rapidly deployable, mobile ballistic protection against small arms and fragmentation threats. The ESPS also would provide immediate protection to troops at the beginning of a deployment before more robust protection such as sandbags and concrete barriers are readily available.

C.2 GENERAL SCOPE: The contractor shall supply all necessary personnel, facilities, equipment and materials to accomplish the requirements set forth herein. The contractor shall produce fifty (50) complete ESPS modules, in accordance with CLIN 0001, for use during Government-conducted Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) testing as required by the ESPS Performance Specification (Attachment 0001). The contractor shall also provide all logistic support material including a military technical manual, provisioning data, packaging data and training material in accordance with the contract requirements. All details for Technical Testing (TT), Logistics Demonstration (LD), and Early User Evaluation (EUE) to be conducted in the EMD phase will be provided in the approved ESPS Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP). Upon successful completion of Government-conducted EMD testing, the contractor shall produce fifty (50) complete ESPS modules, in accordance with CLIN 0002, for contractor-conducted, Government-witnessed First Article Test (FAT). Upon completion of FAT, the contractor shall produce complete ESPS modules, in accordance with CLIN 0002 and in accordance with the quantities defined in Sections B and F of this solicitation.

C.3 EMD EFFORTS

C.3.1 EMD TESTING: The Government shall conduct all EMD testing in accordance with the ESPS Performance Specification (Attachment 0001).

C.3.1.1 EMD TEST UNITS: The contractor shall produce and deliver fifty (50) ESPS modules for use as EMD Test units during Government conducted EMD testing, which includes Technical Testing (TT), Logistics Demonstration (LD), and Early User Evaluation (EUE). The contractor shall supply any necessary tools, spare parts, and accessories necessary for EMD testing. The EMD Test units shall be production representative (i.e. fabricated using all materials, processes, fixtures, and tooling intended for use in production). The contractor shall provide a draft manual of commercial style for use during EMD testing. The draft manual shall include, as a minimum, material composition, baseline design premise, and setup and takedown instructions.

C.3.2 GOVERNMENT VERIFICATION OF TECHNICAL MANUAL (TM): TM Verification is a Government responsibility. Verification will be scheduled in accordance with the CDRL for Data Item A006. Verification will take place at Natick, MA unless otherwise specified by the contracting activity. The contractor shall consider verification support and conduct in the pricing proposal. The contractor shall take corrective action resulting from the Verification and furnish the Final Reproducible Copy (FRC), digitized and PDF submissions, no later than the date specified on the CDRL for Data Item A006 and Attachment 0003.

C.3.3 TECHNICAL DATA

C.3.3.1 MAINTENANCE TASK ANALYSIS: The contractor shall develop and produce a Maintenance Task Analysis (MTA) for the ESPS in accordance with Attachment 0002 and CDRL A001.

C.3.3.2 LEVEL OF REPAIR ANALYSIS: The contractor shall develop and produce a Level of Repair Analysis (LORA) for the ESPS in accordance with Attachment 0002 and CDRL A002.

C.3.3.3 MAINTENANCE ALLOCATION CHART: The contractor shall develop and produce a Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC) for the ESPS in accordance with Attachment 0002 and CDRL A003.

C.3.3.4 PROVISIONING PARTS LIST: The contractor shall develop and produce a Provisioning Parts List (PPL) for the ESPS in accordance with Attachment 0002 and CDRL A004.

C.3.3.5 ENGINEERING DATA FOR PROVISIONING: The contractor shall develop and produce Engineering Data for Provisioning (EDFP) for the ESPS in accordance with Attachment 0002 and CDRL A005.

C.3.3.6 DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF EQUIPMENT PUBLICATIONS: Contractor developed technical manuals (TM(s)) IAW MIL-STD-40051-2(B) including all changes, are a required component of each capability and no capability shall be deemed delivered or complete without the required, acceptable technical manuals. The contractor shall develop and produce an Operator and Field Maintenance Manual including Repair Parts and Special Tools List (RPSTL) for the ESPS in accordance with Attachments 0003 and 0004 and CDRL A006. The contractor, at no additional cost to the Government, shall incorporate changes resulting from all testing, TM Validation, Logistics Demonstration (LD), Early User Evaluation (EUE), and TM Verification into the manual.

The Contractor shall ensure that data deliverables accurately reflect all changes resulting from approved Design Change Notices (DCNs), Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), Requests for Waiver (RFW), etc. The cost of data changes resulting from DCNs, ECPs and RFWs shall be included in the basic cost for these items.

C.3.3.7 VALIDATION PLAN AND REPORT FOR EQUIPMENT PUBLICATIONS: The contractor shall provide a Validation Plan and Report for Operator and Field Maintenance Manual including Repair Parts and Special Tools List (RPSTL) for the ESPS in accordance with Attachments 0003 and 0004 and CDRL A007.

C.3.3.8 INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA INSTRUCTION: The contractor shall develop and produce a contractor provided training video on DVD, Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI) on DVD, and user instructions to install and run the IMI DVD for the ESPS in accordance with Attachment 0007 and CDRL A008.

C.3.3.9 SPECIAL PACKAGING INSTRUCTIONS: The contractor shall develop and produce Special Packaging Instructions (SPI) for the ESPS in accordance with CDRL A009. All National Maintenance Work Requirement (NMWR) candidate items are considered SPI. When determining which type of container to use, reference MIL- STD-2073-1E (including all changes), Appendix C. Packaging processes and materials shall be described for cleaning, drying, preserving, unit, intermediate (as applicable), and exterior packing, marking, and unitization.

Figures and narrative data shall be developed to describe the form, fit, and function of packaging in sufficient detail for reproduction.

C.3.3.10 NATIONAL MAINTENANCE WORK REQUIREMENT: The contractor shall develop and produce a National Maintenance Work Requirement (NMWR) including Repair Parts and Special Tools List (RPSTL) for the ESPS in accordance with Attachments 0005 and 0006 and CDRL A010.

C.3.3.11 VALIDATION PLAN AND REPORT FOR NMWR: The contractor shall develop and produce a NMWR Validation Plan and Report for the ESPS in accordance with Attachments 0005 and 0006 and CDRL A011.

C.3.3.12 PROVISIONING PARTS LIST FOR NMWR: The contractor shall develop and produce a NMWR Provisioning Parts List (PPL) for the ESPS in accordance with Attachment 0002 and CDRL A012.

C.3.3.13 ENGINEERING DATA FOR PROVISIONING FOR NMWR: The contractor shall develop and produce a NMWR Engineering Data for Provisioning (EDFP) for the ESPS in accordance with Attachment 0002 and CDRL A013.

C.3.3.14 SAFETY ASSESSMENT REPORT: The contractor shall develop and produce a Safety Assessment Report (SAR) for the ESPS in accordance with Attachments 0012 and 0013 and CDRL A014.

C.3.3.15 PRODUCT DRAWINGS: The contractor shall develop and produce product drawings for the ESPS in accordance with Attachments 0008 and 0009 and CDRL A015. Prior to the completion of FAT, beginning with the design and fabrication of EMD Test Units, the contractor shall maintain internal configuration control of the product drawings. However, upon completion of FAT, the Government shall assume configuration control of the product drawings, and from that point further, any proposed changes to the drawings shall be submitted in the form of a PdM FSS approved Engineering Change Proposal (C.5.4.2).

C.3.3.16 MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORTS: The contractor shall develop and produce monthly progress reports for ESPS in accordance with Attachment 0017 and CDRL A016.

C.3.4 CONTRACTOR SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

C.3.4.1 TESTING LOCATIONS: The Contractor may be present, at the Government’s discretion, during EMD testing at locations away from the contractor's facility. Locations may include Aberdeen Test Center, MD; a to-be determined Field location; and Natick, MA as described herein.

C.3.4.2 CONTRACTOR SUPPORT: The contractor may be required, at the Government’s request, to provide technical support throughout the five year ordering period. EMD testing that occurs at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD or equivalent can be assumed to require two (2) trips of three (3) days each. Logistics Demonstration (LD), Early User Evaluation (EUE), and TM Verification that occurs at Natick Soldier Center, Natick, MA can be assumed to require two (2) trips of three (3) days each.

C.3.4.3 MEETINGS, REVIEWS, AND CONFERENCES: The Contractor shall ensure that all personnel and sub-contractors required for an adequate discussion of the contract effort are in attendance and prepared to support the Government at all meetings, reviews and conferences, as required. Scheduling of the meetings, reviews and conferences shall not change the delivery schedule of the contract.

C.3.4.3.1 POST AWARD CONFERENCE: A Post Award Conference shall be conducted within ten (10) days after contract award. The purpose of the conference shall be to provide a mutual understanding of the technical requirements, contractual requirements and the Quality Assurance (QA) provisions of the contract.

C.3.4.3.2 LOGISTICS GUIDANCE CONFERENCE AND MEETINGS: The contractor shall attend the Logistics Guidance Conference to be held within two (2) weeks after post award conference, and other meetings, reviews and conferences, as required, at locations to be specified by the Government. The Logistics Guidance Conference will be organized by the Government and will provide details concerning CDRL development. The contractor should be prepared to ask questions concerning all technical data development.

C.3.4.3.3 LOGISTICS DEMONSTRATION: The Government-managed Logistics Demonstration (LD) shall be conducted at Natick, MA after Government receipt of the Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) Production Qualification Test (PQT) test report, after Contractor managed TM Validation, and after Government acceptance of the 2nd submission of the Technical Manual.

C.3.4.3.4 TECHNICAL MANUAL VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION CONFERENCES: A Contractor managed Technical Manual (TM) Validation Conference, a Government managed TM Verification Conference, and ongoing TM In-Process Reviews (IPRs) shall be required in accordance with Attachment 0003. All in-person TM meetings and conferences, other than the TM Validation shall be held at Natick, MA unless otherwise specified by the Government.

C.3.4.3.5 PROVISIONING CONFERENCE: A Provisioning Conference shall be conducted at a location acceptable to both Government and Contractor within 30 days after the Logistics Demonstration.

C.4 PRODUCTION EFFORTS

C.4.1 FIRST ARTICLE TEST: The contractor shall conduct Government-witnessed First Article Test (FAT) in accordance with the ESPS Performance Specification sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.3 (Attachment 0001).

C.4.1.1 FAT PLAN: The contractor shall develop and produce a FAT Plan for the ESPS in accordance with Attachment 0010 and CDRL A017. The plan shall include an inspection and test system to substantiate product conformance to drawings, specifications, and contract requirements and to all inspections and tests required by the resultant contract. The plan shall describe sample, in-process, and end items tests to be performed as required by the applicable specification. Test procedures shall include applicable test reference, required equipment to perform the test, location of the test, step by step instructions for the test, data to be recorded, and pass/fail criteria.

C.4.1.2 FAT UNITS: The contractor shall produce fifty (50) ESPS modules for assessment during FAT. The contractor shall supply any necessary tools, spare parts, and accessories necessary for FAT. The FAT units shall be production units (i.e. fabricated using all materials, processes, fixtures, and tooling for use in production).

C.4.1.3 FAT REPORT: The contractor shall develop and produce a FAT report in accordance with Attachment 0011 and CDRL A017. The contractor shall provide a copy of the FAT report to the Government no later than thirty (30) days after completion of FAT.

C.4.2 PRODUCTION UNITS: The contractor shall fabricate production units in accordance with the ESPS Performance Specification (Attachment 0001) and the configuration baseline established during EMD, and shall test them in accordance with their approved Test Plans and Procedures. Quantities shall be in accordance with Section B and deliveries shall be in accordance with Section F.

C.4.3 LOT ACCEPTANCE TEST: The Contractor shall conduct Lot Acceptance Tests (LATs) in accordance with the ESPS Performance Specification sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 (Attachment 0001).

C.4.3.1 LAT PLAN: The contractor shall develop and produce a Lot Acceptance Test (LAT) Plan for the ESPS in accordance with Attachment 0010 and CDRL A019. The plan shall include an inspection and test methodology to substantiate product conformance to drawings, specifications, and contract requirements and to all inspections and tests required by the resultant contract. The plan shall describe sample, in-process, and end items tests to be performed as required by the applicable specification. Test procedures shall include applicable test reference, required equipment to perform the test, location of the test, step by step instructions for the test, data to be recorded, and pass/fail criteria.

C.4.3.2 LAT UNITS: The contractor shall randomly select an ESPS module from each production lot to conduct LAT in accordance with the ESPS Performance Specification sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 (Attachment 0001). A lot shall be considered 500 complete ESPS modules or the quantity of one delivery order, whichever is fewer. The contractor shall supply any necessary tools, spare parts, and accessories necessary for LAT. The LAT unit shall be a production unit (i.e. fabricated using all materials, processes, fixtures, and tooling for use in production). Any change in materials, processes, fixtures, tooling, or lapse in production of greater than one month shall signal the beginning of a new lot.

C.4.3.3 LAT REPORT: For each LAT conducted, the contractor shall develop and produce a LAT report in accordance with Attachment 0011 and CDRL A019. The contractor shall provide a copy of the LAT report to the Government no later fifteen (15) days after completion of LAT.

C.4.4 CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT: The contractor shall implement and maintain an internal configuration management program for the ESPS throughout the life of the contract.

C.4.4.1 CONFIGURATION CONTROL: The contractor shall use configuration control to manage proposed changes to the design beginning with the submission of the Production Qualification Test units. Configuration control shall be used to document the impact of proposed changes and to update configuration documentation.

Upon completion of FAT, the Government shall assume configuration control of the design, and the Contractor shall not alter the design in form, fit, or function without prior approval from the Contracting Officer, in the form of a PdM FSS approved Engineering Change Proposal.

C.4.4.2 ENGINEERING CHANGE PROPOSAL (ECP): An ECP shall be prepared for proposed changes. MIL- STD-973, Appendix D may be used for reference when preparing ECPs. Sample ECP and Notice Of Revision (NOR) forms are provided in Attachments 0014 and 0015. At a minimum, the ECP shall include the following:

a. Date Prepared

b. ECP Number

c. Justification and Priority Code

d. System Designation (i.e. Cage Code, nomenclature, model, P/N)

e. Name of Part (or Lowest Assembly) Affected

f. Baselines Affected

g. Title of Change

h. Description of Change

i. Need for Change

j. Effect on Interfaces (i.e. Integrated Logistics Support (ILS), Interchangeability and Interoperability)

k. Total Costs/Savings

l. Retrofit Information (if applicable)

m. Impact to Technical Data

C.4.4.3 PHYSICAL CONFIGURATION AUDIT SUMMARY REPORT: The Contractor shall develop and produce a Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) Summary Report at the completion of FAT, in accordance with Attachment 0016 and CDRL A018.

C.4.4.4 TECHNICAL MANUAL, INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA INSTRUCTION (IMI) DVD TRAINING

PRESENTATION AND TRAINING VIDEO OVER-PACK REQUIREMENTS: The contractor shall over-pack one copy of the Government furnished Department of the Army authenticated Technical Manual, a contractor provided Training video on DVD and a contractor provided Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI) Training Presentation on DVD per individual delivery order.

C.5 FUTURE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: As battlefield threats evolve, the Government may choose to further develop the ESPS product to address them. As such, the contractor shall be prepared to work in partnership with the Government to develop the ESPS, using the armor panels designed herein in a new or unique configuration, to provide enhanced protection.

C.6 SPARE AND REPLACEMENT PARTS: The contractor shall provide the following spare and replacement parts; Panel(s), ESPS (5-10-2023), Support strut, Welded Assembly, ESPS (5-10-2021) Universal Strut Handle, ESPS (5-10-2022) Ground Anchor Bracket (5-10-0208) Tent Peg, 18 Inch Steel (5-4-196). All spare and replacement parts shall be packaged in accordance with section D of the contract.

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

The Acceptance/Inspection Schedule for CLIN 0030 has been changed from:

INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

Destination Government Destination Government

To:

INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

Origin Government Destination Government

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 0031:

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 0032:

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 0033:

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 0034:

The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 0035:

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

52.211-9 DESIRED AND REQUIRED TIME OF DELIVERY (JUN 1997)

(a) The Government desires delivery to be made according to the following schedule:

DESIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE

ITEM NO. QUANTITY DELIVERY SCHEDULE

0001 50 Each Within 30 days after delivery order award

0002 Undefined 50 each within 60 days after issuance of delivery order, and 500 per month thereafter

0003 As required As required

0004 As required As required

0005 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A001

0006 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A002

0007 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A003

0008 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A004

0009 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A005

0010 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A006

0011 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A007

0012 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A007

0013 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A008

0014 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A009

0015 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A010

0016 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A011

0017 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A011

0018 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A012

0019 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A013

0020 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A014

0021 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A015

0022 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A016

0023 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A017

0024 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A017

0025 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A018

0026 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A019

0027 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A019

0028 As required As required by delivery order

0029 As required As required by delivery order

0030 As required As required by delivery order

0031 As required As required by delivery order

0032 As required As required by delivery order

0033 As required As required by delivery order

0034 As required As required by delivery order

0035 As required As required by delivery order

If the offeror is unable to meet the desired delivery schedule, it may, without prejudicing evaluation of its offer, propose a delivery schedule below. However, the offeror's proposed delivery schedule must not extend the delivery period beyond the time for delivery in the Government's schedule as follows:

F.5 REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE

ITEM NO. QUANTITY DELIVERY SCHEDULE

0001 50 Each Within 60 days after contract award

0002 Undefined 50 each within 90 days after issuance of delivery order, and 500 per month thereafter

0003 As required As required

0004 As required As required

0005 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A001

0006 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A002

0007 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A003

0008 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A004

0009 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A005

0010 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A006

0011 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A007

0012 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A007

0013 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A008

0014 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A009

0015 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A010

0016 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A011

0017 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A011

0018 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A012

0019 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A013

0020 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A014

0021 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A015

0022 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A016

0023 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A017

0024 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A017

0025 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A018

0026 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A019

0027 1 Each In accordance with CDRL A019

0028 As required As required by delivery order

0029 As required As required by delivery order

0030 As required As required by delivery order

0031 As required As required by delivery order

0032 As required As required by delivery order

0033 As required As required by delivery order

0034 As required As required by delivery order

0035 As required As required by delivery order

Offers that propose delivery of a quantity under such terms or conditions that delivery will not clearly fall within the applicable required delivery period specified above, will be considered nonresponsive and rejected. If the offeror proposes no other delivery schedule, the desired delivery schedule above will apply.

F.6 OFFEROR'S PROPOSED DELIVERY SCHEDULE

ITEM NO. QUANTITY DELIVERY SCHEDULE

Attention is directed to the Contract Award provision of the solicitation that provides that a written award or acceptance of offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror results in a binding contract. The Government will mail or otherwise furnish to the offeror an award or notice of award not later than the day the award is dated. Therefore, the offeror shall compute the time available for performance beginning with the actual date of award, rather than the date the written notice of award is received from the Contracting Officer through the ordinary mails. However, the Government will evaluate an offer that proposes delivery based on the Contractor's date of receipt of the contract or notice of award by adding (1) five calendar days for delivery of the award through the ordinary mails, or (2) one working day if the solicitation states that the contract or notice of award will be transmitted electronically. (The term "working day" excludes weekends and U.S. Federal holidays.) If, as so computed, the offered delivery date is later than the required delivery date, the offer will be considered nonresponsive and rejected.

(End of clause)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1.1 The award will be made based on 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 four (4) evaluation factors: Technical (FACTOR I), Delivery Schedule (FACTOR II), Past Performance (FACTOR III) and Contract Price (FACTOR IV).

M.1.2 To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical and Delivery Schedule factors (to include all subfactors). A Contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR (See FAR 9.104, which describes the standards prospective contractors, must meet to be determined “responsible”), as supplemented, whose proposal is responsive in that it conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), and is judged based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Army the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements of this solicitation. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the best value in accordance with business judgments and tradeoffs. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against the Technical Capability and Cost/Price Factors in the source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M.1.3 The tradeoff process is selected as appropriate for this acquisition. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced Offerors or other than the highest technically rated Offerors. In determining the best value to the Government, the Technical and Delivery Schedule Evaluation Criteria, when combined, are more important than the evaluated price.

M.1.4 The Government is more concerned with obtaining a proposal with superior technical merit than making a selection at the lowest evaluated price. Thus, the closer or more similar in merit that the Offerors’ technical proposals are evaluated to be, the more likely the evaluated price may be the determining factor in selection for award. However, the Government will not make an award at a price premium that it considers disproportionate to the benefits associated with the higher technical merit. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decisions.

M.1.5 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government anticipates awarding a single contract as a result of this Request for Proposal (RFP), based on the results of a complete and thorough Government evaluation of proposals consistent with all the evaluation factors. However, the Government reserves the right to not award any contracts in the event that no proposals are considered to be in the best interest of the Government. The contract(s) resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering the evaluation factors and subfactors listed in the RFP.

M.1.6 Reporting: A narrative discussion of the evaluation of each proposal in terms of the evaluation criteria and proposed strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies will be provided to the Contracting Officer.

Each Factor will be rated by consensus and incorporated into a report. If consensus is not obtainable, a minority report prepared and signed by the dissenting evaluator(s) and included in the report.

M.1.7 Ratings: To receive consideration for award offerors shall demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements of the solicitation. An Adjectival Rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical & Delivery Schedule factors and their included subfactors. An evaluation rating of "Unacceptable" at the Subfactor level will cause the entire Factor to be evaluated as "Unacceptable," and an evaluation of "Unacceptable" at the Factor level will cause the entire Proposal to be evaluated as "Unacceptable." Offerors are cautioned that award may not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced offeror.

M.1.8 The offer shall be compliant with requirements as stated in the Statement of Work (SOW) and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), as shown in Attachment J of this RFP. Non-conformance with the instructions in Section L may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. Offerors are responsible for clarifying any questions in preparation of their proposals ensuring clear unambiguous responses are submitted for evaluation. Proposals judged unsuitable in terms of technical capability, schedule commitments or price may be rejected as indicating a lack of understanding of the requirements.

M.1.9. Competitive Range: If the Contracting Officer decides that discussions with offerors are needed, a competitive range determination will be made. The competitive range will be comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. The Contracting Officer will notify Offerors promptly in writing when their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition. That notice shall state the basis for the determination and that a proposal revision will not be considered. The Contracting Officer will use this report to assist in the competitive range determination.

M.1.10 Discussions: Offerors are advised that the Government intends to conduct discussions but reserves the right to award based on the initial proposal submissions without discussions therefore, the offeror's initial proposal shall contain the offeror's best terms. Upon establishment of the competitive range, and to the extent deemed necessary at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer, written discussion items may be issued to remaining Offerors, using control numbers, to further investigate any weaknesses, deficiencies, or other subjects identified by the technical panel as germane to the evaluation process. Discussion items may be issued relating to any matter that requires written revisions to a proposal for which a binding agreement is required/desired.

M.1.11 PROPOSAL RISK: Proposal risks are those associated with the likelihood that an Offeror’s proposed approach will meet the requirements of the SOW. Proposal risk will be evaluated according to M.3.1 with a combined technical/risk rating. This methodology includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

M.2 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.

M.2.1. Factor I TECHNICAL: The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor A - Product Demonstration Model (PDM) Subfactor B - Design

M.2.1.3 FACTOR II DELIVERY SCHEDULE

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each requirement of the RFP. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Section M.3. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings for this factor.

M.2.1.4 FACTOR III PAST PERFORMANCE

Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

M.2.1.5 FACTOR IV CONTRACT PRICE

The resulting award will be a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type. Price reasonableness will utilized in the evaluation of each offeror's price proposal IAW section M.3 of this solicitation.

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH

M.3.1. All proposals in response to this RFP shall be subject to evaluation by a panel of Government Subject Matter Experts and based on an independent comprehensive review and assessment of each proposal against all source selection criteria stated herein. Proposals will be rated in accordance with the process described section M of the solicitation. The evaluation process will rate the offerors ability to perform the work in accordance with all aspects of requirements outlined in this solicitation and the reasonableness of the Contract Price Section.

M.3.1.1 The technical panel will provide a detailed evaluation and assign a combined technical/risk rating for the Technical and Delivery Schedule Factors. The Past Performance Factor will receive only a performance risk rating.

The Contract Price Proposal Factor will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer and/or Price Analyst in accordance with the evaluation criteria established in Factor IV. The technical panel will rate each Factor and Subfactor by consensus for each proposal submitted and will prepare initial and final reports. If consensus is not obtainable, a minority report prepared and signed by the dissenting evaluators shall be presented to the Contracting Officer for consideration.

M.3.1.2 The Government will document the evaluation by providing a narrative discussion of the evaluation of each proposal in terms of the evaluation criteria and proposed strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies. This narrative discussion shall be incorporated into a report, which will be presented to the SSA/Contracting Officer to assist in the competitive range determination/award decision. If a competitive range is established, and to the extent deemed necessary at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer, written discussion items (DIs) will be issued to remaining Offerors to further investigate any weaknesses, deficiencies, or other subjects identified by the technical panel as germane to the evaluation process. These DIs are considered exchanges/discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). The Contracting Officer may also issue DIs relating to any matter that requires written revisions to a proposal for which a binding agreement is required/desired. The technical panel will be responsible for briefing the Contracting Officer at all steps of the evaluation process. The technical panel shall provide its report to the Contracting Officer for a final briefing, if necessary.

M.3.1.3 Proposal Rating: The technical panel will provide a detailed evaluation and assign a combined technical/risk rating for the Technical and Management Factors. The Past Performance Factor will receive only a confidence rating. The Contract Price Proposal Factor will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer and/or Price Analyst in accordance with the evaluation criteria established in the RFP. Ratings consistent with the evaluation Factors will be derived from (1) the ability of the offeror, as demonstrated in the Technical, Delivery Schedule, and Past Performance Sections, to perform the work in accordance with all aspects of requirements outlined in this solicitation and (2) the fair and reasonableness of the Contract Price Section. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of capability commitments in Technical Approach, Delivery Schedule, or Contract Price will be deemed to reflect an inherent lack of technical competence and/or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks associated with contract requirements. Such failures, which bring into question the responsibility of the offeror, may constitute grounds for proposal rejection.

M.3.1.3.1 The criteria utilized for evaluating the Technical (except PDM) and Delivery Schedule Factors and Subfactors of the proposal will be Adequacy of Response and Feasibility of Approach, as defined below.

M.3.1.3.2 Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

M.3.1.3.3 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.

M.3.1.4 Relative Order of Importance (Factors & Subfactors). Award may be made to other than the lowest priced Offerors or other than the highest technically rated Offerors. For this solicitation: Technical (Factor I) is slightly more important than Delivery Schedule (Factor II) which is slightly more important than Past Performance (Factor III) and factors I-III combined are slightly more important than Contract Price (Factor IV). Technical Subfactor A and Subfactor B of are equal importance. As proposals become more equal in their technical merit, the evaluated cost or price becomes more important. As the technical merit and the evaluated cost or price become essentially equal, other factors listed herein may be used as discriminating elements for determining the selection of a source among otherwise substantially equal offers. Business judgments and tradeoffs will be used to determine the proposals offering the "Best Value" to the Government. In determining the best value to the Government, the Government need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the best value decisions.

M.3.2 FACTOR I TECHNICAL: The offerors proposal will be evaluated for adequacy of response and feasibility of approach with regard to the Offeror’s technical capability. Marginal levels of overall details in the Factors and Subfactors could indicate a lack of understanding concerning the requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

M.3.2.1 SUBFACTOR A PRODUCT DEMONSTRATION MODEL (PDM): The PDM will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s ability to manufacture armor materials and the Offeror’s technical understanding of the specification requirements. The PDM will undergo the following evaluation:

a. Visual inspection of the PDM to determine general quality of workmanship, flatness and uniformity.

b. Weighing the PDM to determine areal density (pounds per square foot).

c. Ballistic testing of the PDM against a selection of the projectiles listed in section 3.7.1 of the ESPS Performance Specification.

d. Flexural strength testing of the PDM in accordance with section 3.7.2 of the ESPS Performance Specification.

M.3.2.2 SUBFACTOR B DESIGN: The proposal will be evaluated for adequacy of response and feasibility of approach with regard to the Offeror’s proposed design. The design section shall include details of the materials to be used, details of the armor construction (to include number of layers of each material if layering is to be used), results of any analyses done internally by the Offeror, and drawings and/or cross-sections of the armor system.

Additionally, the Offeror shall provide commentary on its ability to perform in accordance with each of the items in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL).

M.3.3 FACTOR II DELIVERY SCHEDULE: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for adequacy of response and feasibility of approach in regard to the Offeror's proposed Management capabilities. Marginal levels of overall details in this Factor could indicate a lack of understanding concerning the requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

M.3.4 Factor I Technical and Factor II Delivery Schedule Combined Technical/Risk Ratings: A Combined Technical/Risk Rating will be assigned to each Factor and Subfactor by the SSEB, using the adjective/color descriptor. The Factor rating will be a roll up of the Subfactor ratings. The ratings will be supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective/color.

M.3.4.1. The adjective descriptor, as defined below, will be assigned by the evaluators and represents their assessment of how well the offerors proposal meets the stated evaluation criteria for each factor/subfactor.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet…