W911QY-17-R-0020-0001_Amendment.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. Update Section L.9.3.3.2.

2. Update Section M.3.9.6.3., M.3.9.6.4. & M.3.9.6.5.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 16

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Apr-2017

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-0020

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-Mar-2017

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

06-Apr-2017

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-0020

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS

L.1 INTRODUCTION

L.1.1. This requirement is subject to the availability funds.

L.1.2. Offer expiration date is one hundred and eighty (180) days after the closing date of the solicitation.

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Offerors are cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by offerors and submitted with its offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, Offerors may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfdfara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfafara.htm

L.1.3. Offerors proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the provision herein entitled “Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors”.

L.2. PRE-AWARD SURVEY

L.2.1. A Pre-Award Survey may be conducted to examine the offeror's record of integrity and business ethics (which includes satisfactory compliance with the law including tax, labor and employment, environmental, antitrust, and consumer protection laws), technical ability, production capacity, management structure, quality, financial capability, accounting systems, security controls/clearances, labor resources, performance record, and ability to meet required schedules.

L.3. PRE-CONTRACT COSTS

L.3.1. The contractor shall not be reimbursed for any costs incurred prior to the effective date of the contract.

L.4. QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS SOLICITATION

L.4.1. Any questions concerning this solicitation may be submitted in writing via email to Nicole Bernier via email at nicole.e.bernier.civ@mail.mil no later than 30 calendar days prior to the closing date of the solicitation. Questions received after that time may not receive a response and shall be determined on a time permitting basis. Telephone inquiries shall not be accepted.

L.5. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

L.5.1. Multiple Proposals are not authorized. Offerors shall submit one complete, separate and individual proposal.

Each proposal shall comply fully with these instructions. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY BE CAUSE FOR

REJECTION. The proposal shall include all of the information requested in these instructions.

The offeror shall clearly state how they intend to meet the requirements. Mere acknowledgment or restatement of a requirement or task is not acceptable.

The information contained in each proposal shall be presented in a clear, coherent and concise manner. Vague or terse statements such as “will comply”, “noted and understood”, etc. are not acceptable.

The proposal shall be limited to the information that is necessary to convey a point and shall not be overly elaborate.

L.5.2. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions contained within this solicitation and shall arrive no later than date and time specified in this solicitation at the below address. Prior to hand delivering proposals offerors shall coordinate the delivery with Nicole Bernier via email at nicole.e.bernier.civ@mail.mil.

Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground Natick Contracting Division (CCAP-SCN) Milford B Branch Subject: W911QY-17-R-0020 15 General Greene Avenue, Bldg 1, 3rd Floor Natick, MA 01760 ATTN: Nicole Bernier

L.5.3. Email and faxed copies of proposals shall NOT be accepted.

L.5.4. All proposals documents delivered in response to this solicitation shall reflect the following on the address label:

(1) Solicitation Number

(2) The legend TO BE DELIVERED UNOPENED TO, Nicole Bernier, Contract Specialist

(3) The volumes and copy numbers in each box

L.5.5. Please do not submit a transmittal letter with your proposal. Such a letter is unnecessary and statements therein frequently create conflicts or ambiguities, raising the possibility that your proposal takes exception to the terms and conditions of the solicitation.

L.5.6. All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Cost/Price Proposal Volume

L.6. DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSAL

L.6.1. Information contained in the offeror’s technical/manufacturing, management or price proposal must be released under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) upon request from the public except to the extent it contains trade secrets and privileged or confidential commercial or financial information. If the offeror’s proposal contains material meeting this description, which is customarily maintained in confidence in the course of the Offeror’s business and is not otherwise publicly available, and if the offeror does not want it disclosed to the public, he shall mark the title page with the legend that follows:

"This proposal, furnished in response to Solicitation W911QY-17-R-0020, contains trade secrets and/or privileged or confidential commercial or financial information. This information is maintained in confidence in the course of the offeror’s business and is not otherwise publicly available. The offeror submits this information to the government in confidence and understands that it is received with that intent. This information shall not be released or disclosed outside the government under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) or under any other circumstances."

L.6.2. Proposals so marked will be accepted by the government in confidence and will not be released provided that the offeror and/or the government can show upon request under the Freedom of Information Act, that disclosure would either (1) impair the government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future or (2) cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the offeror.

L.7. DISCLOSURE OF UNIT PRICE INFORMATION

L.7.1. This constitutes notification pursuant to Executive Order 12600, Pre-Disclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information (June 23, 1987) of our intention to release unit prices of the awardees in response to any request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552. Unit price is defined as the contract price per unit or item purchased. We consider any objection to be waived unless the Contracting Officer is notified of your objection to such release prior to submission of initial proposals.

L.8. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS DURING PROPOSAL EVALUATION

L.8.1. The government shall employ Best Value techniques to evaluate proposals, conduct negotiations, and determine the successful offerors in this acquisition. "Offers", for the purposes of this solicitation, shall be defined as a response to the solicitation that, if accepted, would bind the offerors to perform the resultant contract. The Offerors can expect the following conditions and responses during proposal evaluation and negotiation:

L.8.1.1. Upon receipt, the proposals will be reviewed for completeness and compliance with solicitation requirements. The proposals will receive a detailed evaluation employing the process and criteria identified in Section M of this solicitation.

L.8.1.2. In accordance with FAR 15.306, the government may conduct exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals, prior to award if award is made without discussions, or leading to the establishment of the competitive range. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the offerors best terms.

L.8.1.3. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD A CONTRACT(S) BASED ON INITIAL

SUBMISSION WITHOUT ORAL PRESENTATION, EXCHANGES AND/OR DISCUSSIONS.

L.8.1.4. In the event the government has not rendered a competitive range determination, the government may conduct exchanges with offerors to enhance the government's understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal; or facilitate the government's evaluation process. Such communications shall not be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal. Such communications may be considered in rating proposals for the purpose of establishing the competitive range. Furthermore, such communications do not and shall not permit offeror's to modify, revise, or otherwise change any element of their proposal.

L.8.1.5. In the event the government does not award without discussions, the government will render a competitive range determination and conduct discussions with only those offerors remaining in the competitive range. In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), the competitive range will consist only of those offers that are the most highly rated offers, however, in accordance with FAR Part 15.306(c)(2) the number of proposals in the competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal shall contain the offeror's best terms.

L.8.1.6. In the event a competitive range has been established, offerors shall be prepared to enter into discussions.

For those offerors in the competitive range, the government shall submit Discussion Items, which shall be answered by the offerors in the form of Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs).

L.8.1.7. Additional competitive range determinations may be made as needed during discussions. A request for Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) shall be received from those offerors remaining in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. The Contracting Officer shall establish a common due date and time for the submission of FPRs. The final proposal revision shall be requested in the following format:

L.8.1.8. If FPRs are requested, the offeror's FPR shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in Section M. Unexplained or inadequately explained departures from the previous submission may significantly impact the evaluation of the offeror's proposal. The information in the FPR should be presented in a clear, coherent and concise manner. Vague or terse statements such as "shall comply", "noted and understood", etc. are NOT acceptable.

L.9. GENERAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

L.9.1.1 Proposals shall be submitted in loose leaf, three-ring binders and on readable/text selectable CD format using Adobe Portable Document Finder (PDF) or equivalent.

L.9.1.2. Offerors shall ensure that their proposal (hard copies and compact disks) is marked with the Volume number, Title, Solicitation number, classification, and Offeror’s name.

L.9.1.3. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions contained within this solicitation and shall arrive at the office specified above no later than the date and time for receipt of proposals as stated in Block 9 of Standard Form 33. See L.5. Proposal Submission for further instruction.

L.9.2. Proposal shall be submitted in five (5) Volumes:

Volume Number Content Number of Copies Volume I Technical/Manufacturing Original + 4 Copies + 1 CD/DVD Volume II Management Original + 4 Copies + 1 CD/DVD Volume III Past Performance Original + 4 Copies + 1 CD/DVD Volume IV Cost/Price Original + 1 Copies + 1 CD/DVD Volume V Administrative Original + 1 Copies + 1 CD/DVD

L.9.2.1. Volumes I, II, III, and V shall be VOID of any proposal cost information. Each volume shall be a stand-alone document and shall clearly and completely describe the effort that the offeror is proposing to accomplish under the contract. Electronic mail (e-mail) and faxed copies of Proposals will not be accepted.

L.9.2.2. Type shall be no smaller than a font size of ten (10) and shall be at least single-spaced and shall be Times New Roman or Arial font. Page size shall not exceed 8 1/2" x 11". Foldout illustrations required for reader ease are allowed; however, the illustration pages shall be counted in 8 1/2" x 11" increments (e.g., an 11" x 17" document will count as two pages).

VOLUME AREA

PAGE

LIMIT

CD/DVD ROM FILE

NAME

I - Technical/Manufacturing 1. Technical 35 TECHMANF

2.

Manufacturing 50

3. ILS

Functions 35

II - Management 45 MGKEYPER

III - Past Performance None PASTPERF

IV - Cost/Price Section I - Supplies or Services and Prices None CP

V - Administrative ADMIN

Section I: Executive Summary 5

Section II: Solicitation Documents None

Section III: DCMA POCs, CAGE, DUNs, and TIN None

Section IV: SAM Section None Section V: Financial Documentation None

Section IV: Teaming Agreements None

L.9.3. Volume I: Factor I – Technical/Manufacturing Capability

L.9.3.1. The offeror must demonstrate a thorough understanding of all the technical requirements of this solicitation to include Section C and the Purchase Description (PD). The offeror shall describe its manufacturing process and how the offeror has taken into consideration cost effective manufacturing procedures to reduce cost, lead times, and labor hours. The offeror shall also describe their manufacturing approach/capability to meet the manufacturing of First Article Test (FAT) units, Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) units, and Full Rate Production (FRP) units based on the government supplied Technical Data Packages (TDPs). The offeror shall include a description of their facilities and a list of the equipment and processes which will be used or proposed to fabricate the IECU systems.

The offeror shall describe how their facilities and equipment will be utilized for this effort and/or provide the plan to acquire additional facilities and/or equipment specifically for this effort if needed. Only those facilities and equipment including subcontractors proposed for this contract should be included. The proposal shall forecast current/anticipated delivery time for initial FAT units, LRIP units, in addition to monthly production capacity, surge capability and corrective actions plans.

Evidence must be presented that the offeror will have adequate resources for the full performance of this contract.

Offerors must provide evidence of key personnel’s experience in the manufacture of vapor compression air conditioning systems. The applicable license or certification for handling, storing and charging of refrigerants and refrigeration systems. Experience must be shown in the areas of sheet metal fabrication, electronic control systems, refrigeration tubing systems, electrical power systems and electro-mechanical assembly. As the offerors are expected to manufacture ECUs based on government TDPs, all Offerors are expected to provide clear evidence of producing items using TDP's or producing items based on TDP's with AutoCAD formatted drawings and sufficient experience in configuration management. The offeror shall provide a plan of how engineering changes will be managed and implemented if approved. Offeror’s shall provide evidence of their experience with Geometric Tolerancing and Dimensioning of engineering drawings using ASME standard Y14.5. The Offeror shall provide evidence of their ability to develop training materials to support classroom training, hands on training, visual aids and interactive multimedia instructions for operators and maintainers.

L.9.3.2. Volume II – Factor II – Management

L.9.3.2.1. The offeror shall provide a complete and comprehensive description of the organization structure relevant to the IECU program, including a description of each department down to the section level. The offeror shall provide a description of their experience/expertise in the field of mechanical systems with a focus on manufacturing of environmental control systems. The offeror shall identify the Quality Assurance Program they plan to implement for the IECU program. The proposal shall provide a description of the offeror's quality control procedures and quality control inspections that are to be utilized during the development of FAT units and manufacturing of production units for the IECU program assets and any processes in place to respond to non-conforming products and deficiencies. In addition, the offeror shall describe its processes for responding to customer-generated Product Quality Deficiency Reports (PQDRs) and Warranty claims. Warranty claims and configuration management plan that will be established to maintain the physical configuration of the IECU. A detailed explanation of how the contractor provided commercial type warranty covering workmanship and materials for all items furnished IAW this contract or any modification thereof. The warranty shall be for a minimum of one year in duration. The warranty period begins upon government acceptance. The offeror shall propose how their Quality Management System’s (QMS) effectiveness to assure defect free products are manufactured and delivered to the government. In addition, this section shall include individual expertise, and/or qualification statements for the key personnel proposed to work on the IECU program should the offeror be chosen. Key personnel should include individuals responsible for program and project management, engineering, manufacturing, quality assurance, refrigeration and administrative tasks. Information submitted should include but is not limited to proposed team members’ experience working on projects of similar scope, participation on government/contractor teams, and partnering with the government. The proposal shall include the overall management approach, controls, subcontracting, project structure, and an organizational chart containing all key personnel utilized for managing the effort.

L.9.3.3. Volume III: Factor III – Past Performance

L.9.3.3.1. All information required pertains to all proposed major subcontractors, as well as the offeror. Major subcontractors are those that are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the cost for the proposed effort.

The offeror shall submit with their proposal their major subcontractors’ letter(s) of consent allowing the government to disclose the subcontractors’ past performance to the offeror during negotiations.

L.9.3.3.2. Contract descriptions. Past performance information on no more than 5 contracts total, either as a prime or for a major subcontractor, over the past three (3) years which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation shall be submitted. The government may choose to investigate contracts beyond the past three (3) years for the purpose of the evaluation. In addition, any and all contracts terminated in whole or in part during the past five (5) years, to include those currently in the process of such termination are considered relevant and the offeror shall provide past performance information for those contracts. Information shall include the following:

Role as prime or subcontractor Place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS numbers Contracting activity, current address and telephone numbers Procuring Contracting Officer's name and current telephone number Technical representative/COR name and current telephone number Contract Number Contract Type Awarded Cost/Price Final or projected final cost/price Original delivery schedule Final or projected final, delivery schedule History of compliance with government requirements for reports and responding to inquiries.

Effectiveness of actions taken to resolve past and ongoing performance problems.

L.9.3.3.3. Performance. For each of the Contracts described above the offeror shall describe the objectives achieved detailing how the effort is similar to the requirements of this solicitation. For any contracts which did not/do not meet the original requirements with regard to original cost, schedule, and/or technical/manufacturing performance, the offeror shall provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for such shortcomings and any demonstrated corrective actions taken to avoid recurrence. The offeror shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised, and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. The offeror shall also provide a copy of any cure notices or show cause letters received on each contract listed and description of any corrective action taken. For any contracts terminated for default or cause, the offeror shall address the reasons for the termination.

L.9.3.3.4 The government requests that offerors send out past performance questionnaires (Attachment 0002 Past Performance Questionnaire) to each of the points of contact (POC’s) identified in the past performance volume. The POC’s will submit completed questionnaires directly to the government POC; Nicole Bernier @ nicole.e.bernier.civ@mail.mil no later than the proposal submission deadline specified in the solicitation. The subject line of the emailed questionnaire submission shall be: “PPQ: IECU Solicitation W911QY-17-R-0020 - (Offeror’s Company Name)” as specified in the questionnaire. Completed past performance questionnaires (PPQ's) are considered source selection sensitive and not releasable to any offeror. Copies of the PPQ's shall not be included in the offerors proposal.

Preferred points of contact are, in order of descending preference: The program manager, procuring contracting officer, or administrative contracting officer. For work performed on a government contract, questionnaires shall be sent to a government POC, regardless of the offeror’s participation in the referenced contract as a prime- or sub-contractor. For non-government contracts, the suggested order of precedence is contractor program or project manager followed by contract manager.

Offerors shall include in the past performance volume a list of all the POC’s who were sent questionnaires. The POC list shall be submitted in table format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; offeror Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; Point of Contact Last Name, First Name; Point of Contact Title;

Point of Contact Telephone Number; Point of Contact e-mail address and the date the questionnaire was e-mailed to POC (month/day/year).

L.9.3.4. Volume IV: Factor IV – Cost/Price

L.9.3.4.1. The offeror shall complete the following parts of the following sections:

Section I: The entirety of Section B constitutes the Offeror’s price proposal for this acquisition. The offeror shall complete ALL pricing in Section B, Schedule of Supplies and Services, unless otherwise annotated on the CLIN.

L.9.3.4.2 Explanation of Estimating Method Use The offeror shall completely explain the methodology used to estimate the proposed pricing and describe why it is a sound estimating methodology. The offeror shall identify the escalation rates used for materials, equipment, subcontracts, direct labor and indirect expenses. The offeror shall describe the basis of the escalation rates.

L.9.3.5. Volume V: Administrative

L.9.3.5.1 Section I: Executive Summary: A letter shall include:

Master Index. A master index that identifies the location of all major topics provided in each volume.

Statement of Compliance. Each offer shall include a statement indicating complete compliance with the solicitation in the Administrative volume, or detailed analysis of any objections, exceptions, contingencies, or additions.

Authorized Negotiators. Offerors shall provide a list of authorized negotiators with their position title and their phone/email contact information.

L.9.3.5.2. Section II: Solicitation Documents. Each offeror shall complete blank lines and provide signatures for the contract sections indicated below without modification to the files. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the Standard Form 33, amendments and all certifications requiring original signature. An Adobe Acrobat file, “.pdf” shall be created to capture the signatures for submission in the Administrative volume.

Originating solicitation section:

A signed and completed Solicitation/Contract Form and any subsequent amendments.

Section F: Complete "Offeror's Proposed Delivery Schedule".

Contract Administration Data Section G: Insert the required information in the spaces provided.

Section H: Complete "Contractor's Organization and Key Personnel

Provisions/Clauses Section K: Complete all the required certifications, representations, and acknowledgments for the prime contractor.

L.9.3.5.3. Section III Company POCs, CAGE, DUNs and TIN: In this section of the Administrative volume, the offeror shall provide the Prime and subcontractor’s cognizant DCMA POC information for each of the respective offices. Also, in offeror format, this section shall list the Prime and subcontractor’s CAGE, DUNs and TIN.

L.9.3.5.4. Section IV Representations and Certifications: The offeror shall complete representations and certifications in System for Award Management (SAM). In SAM, the offeror shall enter the NAICS code for this effort and complete the Representations and Certifications information appropriately. Then print the Representations and Certifications documentation for the volume. Offerors must be registered in the SAM under the applicable

NAICS for this requirement, to be determined responsive and responsible at time of proposal submission. Please refer to the website: https://www.sam.gov/.

L.9.3.5.5. Section V Financial Documentation: In order for the government to determine financial responsibility, offerors shall submit the prime contractor’s past fiscal year and current reporting period as of the date of the proposal financial statements to include a balance sheet; income statement; cash flow statement; and statement of retained earnings. Also, a copy of the prime’s line of credit and its current status at the time of proposal submission shall be provided.

L.9.3.5.6. Section VI Teaming Agreements: If applicable, the offeror shall provide a copy of all pages within signed teaming agreements with subcontractors. The agreement should outline the type of work, complexity and approximate percentage level of work assigned to the subcontractor. Also, it must identify which socio-economic categories the sub-contractor qualifies for under NAICS code 333415; as well as the subcontractor’s POC with the address, phone, email and CAGE for verification-if necessary.

L.10. INCORPORATION OF PROPOSAL

L.10.1. All or portions of the Contractor's Technical Proposal, as negotiated and accepted by the government, may be incorporated by reference into the resultant contract. Some or all of the information furnished by the contractor may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. For this reason the contractor shall identify information contained in the proposal which the contractor specifically does not want to be incorporated by reference.

L.10.2. Notwithstanding any rights the government shall receive under the contract to the data being protected under the solicitation, any request for information received under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C 552) for the resulting contract, including any portion of the proposal that was incorporated into the contract, shall be reviewed in accordance with the FOIA statute. The government shall contact the contractor to identify what information, if any, contained in the contract should be withheld from release to the public. The contractor shall then have to demonstrate that the information is (1) a trade secret or (2) confidential, commercial information. In case of the latter, the contractor would have to demonstrate, in detail, that disclosure would (1) impair the government’s ability to obtain necessary information in the future or (2) cause substantial harm to the contractor.

L.11. ARMY MATERIAL COMMAND, AMC-LEVEL PROTEST PROGRAM

L.11.1. If an interested party have complaints about this procurement, it is preferable that an interested party first attempt to resolve those concerns with the responsible Contracting Officer. However, an interested party can also protest to Headquarters, AMC. The HQ, AMC-Level Protest Program is intended to encourage interested parties to seek resolution of their concerns within AMC as an Alternative Dispute Resolution forum, rather than filing a protest with the General Accounting Office or other external forum. Contract award or performance is suspended during the protest to the same extent, and within the same time periods, as if filed at the GAO. The AMC protest decision goal is to resolve protests within 20 working days from filing. To be timely, protests must be filed within the periods specified in FAR 33.103. Send protests (other than protests to the Contracting Officer) to:

Headquarters U.S. Army Materiel Command Office of Command Counsel-Deputy Command Counsel 4400 Martin Road Rm: A6SE040.001 Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000 Fax: (256) 450-8840 or e-mail: usarmy.redstone.usamc.mbx.protests@mail.mil

The AMC-level protest procedures are found at: http://www.amc.army.mil/amc/commandcounsel.html

If Internet access is not available contact the Contracting Officer or HQ, AMC to obtain the AMC-Level Protest Procedures.

L.11.2. Protests filed with the Contracting Officer shall be submitted to the address designated in FAR Clause 52.233-2 of the solicitation or in the paragraph entitled "Remedies" of the AMC-Level Protest Procedures whenever Internet access is not available to the contractor. For all protests filed with the Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer shall continue to serve as the Protest Decision Authority.

52.233-2 SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEP 2006)

(a) Protests, as defined in section 33.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from:

Mr. Curtis Britton 15 General Greene Avenue, Bldg. 1 Natick, MA 01760 508-233-6150

(b) The copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one day of filing a protest with the GAO.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

M.1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will not be made by the application of a predetermined formula, but instead by the use of a trade-off process among factors identified below and by exercise of sound business judgement on the part of the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The contract award will be made to the offeror(s) based on the best overall (i.e., best value) value to the government, with appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors set forth herein. To receive consideration for award, overall evaluations of not less than "Acceptable" must be achieved in the following factors: Technical/Manufacturing Capability and Management. An evaluation rating of "Unacceptable" at the factor level will cause the entire proposal to be evaluated as "Unacceptable". The Contract/Price Proposal will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness and price competitiveness, and will not be given a combined adjectival risk rating.

The Past Performance Factor shall be assigned a confidence assessment rating. The confidence rating will be based on the relevancy and quality of submitted past performance, and will not be given an adjectival or risk rating. 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 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.

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. 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.1.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation however, the government reserves the right to not award a contract in the event that no proposals are considered to be in the best interest of the government.

M.1.2. RESERVED

M.1.3. 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 & Management Factors. An evaluation rating of "Unacceptable" at the Factor level will cause the entire proposal to be rated as "Unacceptable." Offerors are cautioned that award may not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced offeror.

M.1.4. 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.

M.1.5. 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 offerors initial proposal shall contain the offerors 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 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.2. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED:

M.2.1. Factor I – Technical/Manufacturing Capability

M.2.2. Factor II –Management

M.2.3. Factor III - Past Performance

M.2.4. Factor IV – Cost/Price

M.3. EVALUATION APPROACH

M.3.1. All proposals in response to this solicitation 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. Proposals will be rated in accordance with the process described in this section. The 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 Price Factor.

M.3.2. Proposal Rating: The technical panel will assign a combined technical/risk rating for the Technical/Manufacturing Capability. The Past Performance Factor will receive only a confidence rating. The Price Factor will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, price competitiveness, and will not be given an adjectival or risk rating.

M.3.3. Relative Importance of Factors: The Technical/Manufacturing Capability Factor is the most important of all the factors, and is more important than the Cost/Price Factor, which is more important than the Management Factor, which is equally important to the Past Performance Factor. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

M.3.4. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

M.3.4.1. Adequacy of Response: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offerors methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. 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 solicitation.

M.3.4.2. 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.3.5. Factor I – Technical/Manufacuting Capability The offerors adequacy of response and feasibility of approach with regard to their technical/manufacturing capability will be evaluated to ensure the offeror can meet all the requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.6. Factor II – Management The offerors adequacy of response and feasibility of approach with regard to their management capability will be evaluated to ensure the offeror can meet all the requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.7. Technical/Manufacturing Capability and Management Factor Ratings: The Technical/Manufacturing Capability and Management factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, risks and uncertainties of the offerors proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offerors proposal meets the factor requirements.

M.3.7.1. 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.

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 requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

M.3.7.2. The Adjectival descriptors will be supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, as defined below:

M.3.7.2.1. Strength: An aspect of an offerors proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the government during contract performance.

M.3.7.2.2. Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

M.3.7.2.3. Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

M.3.7.2.4.. Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of weaknesses and significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001

M.3.8. Factor III – Past Performance The offerors and subcontractors past performance with government and industry will be evaluated to assess the relative risks associated with the offerors likelihood of success in meeting the requirements stated in this solicitation.

Specific areas of past performance examined will include demonstrated technical and schedule performance, cost control, general responsiveness to contract requirements, customer satisfaction, customer focus, and references, if applicable. Past performance data, which demonstrates the offerors ability to update military technical manuals and ability to train military technicians on maintenance procedures will also be evaluated. Emphasis will be on recent and relevant performance.

M.3.8.1. The Past Performance Factor shall be assigned a confidence assessment rating: The confidence rating will be based on the relevancy and quality of submitted past performances as defined below.

M.3.8.2. Relevancy: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation will be to assess the offerors past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is associated with the IECU 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 will include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. Relevant is defined as those contracts associated with Environmental Control Units (ECUs)/Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems and equipment or other products similar to the effort required by this contract. Relevant contracts are also defined as those encompassing similar scope in the cost;

complexity; system engineering; production; and integrated logistics support requirements as this contract requires.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description 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.

M.3.8.3. Quality Assessment: The quality of the offerors past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant will be assessed to determine 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.

M.3.8.3.1. High Quality: Contractor clearly demonstrated a level of performance above expectations.

M.3.8.3.2. Acceptable Quality: Contractor demonstrated an acceptable level of performance.

M.3.8.3.3. Low Quality: Contractor did not demonstrate an acceptable level of performance

M.3.8.4. Past Performance Confidence Assessment: Once the Relevancy and Quality of the past performance contracts has been established, 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.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offerors recent/relevant performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence government has a low expectation that the offeror will

No Confidence government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to

M.3.9. Factor IV – Cost/Price: Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR part 15.305(a)(1) to ensure that prices are fair and reasonable, based on adequate price competition and a comparison to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and will not be given an adjectival or risk rating. The solicitation requires firm-fixed-prices contract line items. In the event that reasonableness cannot be determined based on competition and the comparison to the IGCE other than cost and pricing data shall be utilized.

M.3.9.1. Pricing will be evaluated based on a comparison of proposed prices from all offerors received in response to the solicitation as well as a comparison of proposed prices with the IGCE.

M.3.9.2. Reasonableness: The government evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed price based on competition and a comparison with the IGCE. The government may utilize the methodology proposed Section L.9.3.4.2 to assist in determining price reasonableness. In the event reasonableness cannot be determined then the methodology with be evaluated. For the price to be reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. Reasonableness takes into account the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions and other factors that affect the ability of an offeror to perform the contract requirements. Reasonableness depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including:

a. Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the offerors business or of the contract performance;

b. Generally accepted sound business practices, Federal and State laws and regulations, etc.; and

c. Any significant deviations from the offerors…