Solicitation Amendment W911QY25RA0170003 SF 30.pdf

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication 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 NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

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

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section I - Contract Clauses

Additional Information/Notes

The following clauses were added:

DFARS Clauses Incorporated by Reference

Number Title Effective Date Alternate/ Deviation

Variation Effective Date

252.227-7016Rights in Bid or Proposal Information. Jan 2025

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Government provided AP - PPE Patterns

Vendors shall request a copy of the patterns via an email request to the following US government personnel: , , and christine.m.halamoutis.civ@army.mil andrew.j.richard12.civ@army.mil elizabeth.m.

,nordell.civ@army.mil

The following government personnel shall be included on any email requests as a cc: emmanuel.kumfa.

civ@army.mil

Vendors shall state the vendor contact information in any requests. Vendor information shall include:

W911QY25RA0170003

mailto:christine.m.halamoutis.civ@army.mil mailto:andrew.j.richard12.civ@army.mil mailto:elizabeth.m.nordell.civ@army.mil mailto:elizabeth.m.nordell.civ@army.mil mailto:emmanuel.kumfa.civ@army.mil mailto:emmanuel.kumfa.civ@army.mil

Vendor Name Vendor

POC Name Vendor

POC email address

The US government will respond to valid requests via email on how to retrieve the patterns via DOD

SAFE.

Note: Government patterns will be provided in electronic format in a recent Gerber AccuMark version.

For contractors without access to compatible AccuMark CAD and/or plotting capabilities it is recommended to utilize a 2nd party Pattern Service for pattern conversion and/or plotting.

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Offerors may submit only one written technical and cost proposal, electronically via email to the point of contact(s) identified in Section L, (without citations for or linkages to websites) in response to the SOW, Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) and all other requirements specified in the solicitation.

b. Each paragraph shall be single spaced and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Times New Roman font is required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode.

c. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volum e

Title Digital Copies

Maximum Pages

I W. L. Gore Certification 1 2

II Technical 1 20

III Quality 1 20

IV Past Performance 1 20, excluding

PPQs

V Cost/Price No page limit

VI

Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, and Certifications / Representations

1 No page limit

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

d. Proposal Submission: All proposal submissions are due on August 8, 2025 at 12:00 PM Eastern Time via email to christine.m.halamoutis.civ@army.mil, andrew.j.richard12.civ@army.mil and elizabeth.m.

nordell.civ@army.mil. It is the Offeror's responsibility to assure its proposal is received by the date and time specified above. In accordance with FAR 15.208, if your proposal is not received at the initial point of entry to the Government by the exact date and time specified above, it may be determined late, may not be evaluated, and may not be considered for Award. Proposal, as the term is used here, means ALL factors and parts of the solicitation, inclusive of subcontractor proposal submissions.

All question related to the submission of this proposal shall be submitted by July 31, 2025.

Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov and have a SAM Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code. For further information regarding registration for SAM visit the System for Award Management website at http://www.sam.gov/ and register or create a user account.

In order for proposals to receive full consideration for award, the Offeror shall ensure that the information furnished in support of the proposal is factual, accurate, complete and defensible. Failure to provide the information requested by the solicitation may render the Offeror's proposal incomplete and ineligible for further consideration for award.

2. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins - Top, Bottom, Left, Right - 1"

Gutter - 0"

From Edge - Header, Footer 0.5"

Page Size, Width - 8.5"

Page Size, Height - 11"

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be compressed(zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e., doc, xls, ppt, etc.

Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aide in the cost /price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel. Each volume shall be labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror's name. **Please note - Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. Offerors are cautioned that the government will not consider or evaluate any information that exceeds the margin, font or number of pages allowed. Indices to include table of acronyms, table of contents, cross-reference matrices between the proposal and the solicitation may be used to ensure that all pertinent sections of the proposal are fully understood. The table of acronyms, table of contents, and cross-reference matrices do not count towards page limits. The cross-reference matrix shall identify the location of all major topics provided in each factor.

The Offeror shall provide sufficient detail in a clear and concise manner to completely and logically address the evaluation factors and criteria. The Government does not desire excess verbiage, unnecessary and elaborate brochures, or lengthy, repetitious, disorganized presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and clear offer. Such presentations may be construed as an indication of the Offeror's lack of understanding of the requirement. All Offerors are reminded that unsupported promises to comply with the contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals shall not merely parrot back the contractual requirements, but rather their proposal shall support any statements relating to the proposed performance.

The Offeror shall include cost information ONLY in Volume IV Cost/Price. The inclusion of cost data in other factors will result in the removal of each page or tab containing the cost data and the pages and tabs will not be evaluated or considered.

Each Volume (file) shall be a stand-alone document or workbook (for cost data) and clearly and completely provide the requested information. The Government will evaluate each file in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in Section M of this solicitation.

The Offeror shall provide their proposal, segregated by factor, as follows:

(i) Volume I - W. L. Gore Certification

The contractor must provide a copy of their current certification

(ii) VOLUME II - Technical.

The contractor shall provide a Technical and Management Approach clearly demonstrating how the Government's requirement will be met. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

Phase I : Factor I - W. L. Gore Certification

In order to be able to produce and deliver ensembles under this contract, the prime contractor or its industry partner must provide documentation showing current certification from W. L. Gore that it is authorized to use its material for cut and sew purposes. This is a mandatory requirement of this procurement. If the offeror does not demonstrate that they meet the requirement at the time of proposal submission, they will be eliminated from consideration for award and no additional volumes of the offeror's proposal will be evaluated.

Phase II: Factors II-IV

Factor 2: Technical/Cut & Sew Manufacturing - The Technical/Cut & Sew Manufacturing Factor will receive a combined technical/risk rating of each Offeror's approach to performing the cut and sew manufacturing effort for the IFS to the SOW. IAW the SOW each.

a. The contractor's narrative discussion shall describe its existing manufacturing capability, along with its ability to produce and deliver garments either as a prime or with cut and sew partner(s)and to ensure that management controls are in place to ensure effective producibility with no work stoppage. The offeror shall provide a proposed risk reduction method that documents the offerors process to reduce the chances that the production facility will stop production for more than five(5) consecutive days or more than fifteen (15) days within a thirty (30) day period.

b. The offeror shall provide a narrative which describes in sufficient details its production and manufacturing capability. It shall describe its production capability, to include production processes, procedures and capacity in producing the IFS over the period of performance for the contract and in the quantities anticipated in subsequent delivery orders, and to include personnel and equipment plans. The proposed method shall document the offerors ability to maximize production capacity for each size and describe how a surge requirement will be met from 1,000 to 5,500 integrated foot ware systems every 90 days should the need arise. The government will evaluate the offeror's experience in producing and assembling items of this type and whether or not the offeror's manufacturing capability is internal to the offeror's company or if some or all parts of the manufacturing process will be the responsibility of a subcontractor. The offeror's shall describe their ability to immediately being production of the IFS systems, their approach to effectively manage subcontractors (if applicable), materials ordering, production schedules, shipping and delivery, and the process utilized for accurate invoicing.

c. The offeror shall describe the equipment available to support the production efforts and identify any long-lead items/materials it will require. The Offeror must delineate, in detail, its plans to manage the storage of the government furnished material to be provided shortly after award of the contract and for the life of the contract, inclusive of all subsequent delivery orders. This includes a discussion of the processes that are in place relative to government furnished property management and tracking. Also, the packaging, handling, storage, and shipment of the completed ensembles, which are critical for meeting the shelf-life requirements, these are clearly defined within the SOW/MIL-DTL 43976D, dated 24July2018.

d. The Offeror's narrative shall demonstrate their planned approach to the first article considerations, as well as the government's production lot testing.

e. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)/Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS). The offeror shall provide an IMS/CWBS, which includes the offeror's proposed plan to implement the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) for the effort within the associated schedule constraints. The IMS/CWBS shall include defined dates and timeframes for all contract tasks, milestones, reviews and deliverables.

d. Program Risk. The offeror shall describe its approach to address the technical and schedule risks associated with the requirements of the contract. The proposal shall identify potential program risks and plans to develop and to manage risk mitigation strategies

(ii) Volume II - Quality. The Offeror is responsible for including sufficient details (without reference to contract price) to allow for a complete and accurate evaluation.

The Contractor shall demonstrate how its Quality Assurance, Quality Control and Quality Management System processes, procedures, and controls will ensure that all AP-PPE Mod ensembles in all configurations are produced and manufactured to quality standards as defined in the AP-PPE Mod SOW Attachment 0001 of the solicitation. The offeror's narrative must also demonstrate the existence of process controls for repeatability during the manufacturing and assembly process, inventory management, inspection of parts, and assemblies for the acceptance of ensembles.

The proposal shall provide a narrative discussion that addresses how the Offeror shall maintain a quality management system, ISO 9001 Quality Management System certification, which will be incorporated in FAR 52.246-11, Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement to ensure the AP-PPE Mod ensembles meet the requirements of the Government's SOW and document the level of quality that will be employed during the production of the AP-PPE Mod garments. The Offeror shall submit a Quality System Plan (QSP) that demonstrates how this system will be implemented. The Offeror's QSP will not count towards the page count limitation. The Government reserves the right to incorporate the QSP in any contract that may result from this solicitation. The Offeror must provide a copy of their current ISO9001 certification to be considered for award.

The Offeror shall identify how it intends to implement in-process and final inspection procedures to assess the quality of the product (i.e. through monitoring, inspecting and correcting identified deficiencies).

(iii) Volume III - Past Performance. This volume shall contain recent and relevant past performance information. The prime offeror shall submit no more than three (3) contract past performance efforts (narratives). Of the three (3) contract past performance efforts(narratives) submitted, only one (1) can be from a major subcontractor. The offeror may submit multiple DOs/TOs under one (1) contract number, however, each DO/TO is considered a standalone effort and will be evaluated independently. The specific DO/TO number must be provided for the effort. If only an IDIQ contract number is submitted, the government will not evaluate that past performance effort.

Recent, the Government defines recent as any contract which has been performed within the last three (3) years of the issuance of this solicitation.

Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 315210 required by the RFP and/or efforts that demonstrate the Offeror's ability to perform cut and sew operation of military (preferably Chemical and Biological) W.L. Gore manufactured stretch materials/garments of high volume and utilizing fabrics that provide protection against military unique and toxic industrial chemicals. Some of the factors in determining similarities include: the nature and extent of the work involved, skill sets required, contract dollar value, contract duration, and supported organization.

The volume shall not exceed twenty (20) pages, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms.

This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

Section1 - Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information:

a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and UEI Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

(b) Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer's name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(c) Government's technical representative/Contracting Officer's Representative and current email address, telephone, and fax numbers.

(d) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer's name, and current e-mail address, telephone, and fax number.

(e) Government contract administration activity's Pre-Award Monitor's name, and current e-mail address, telephone, and fax numbers.

(f) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery Order Numbers.

(g) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M),etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

(h) Awarded price/cost.

(i) Final or projected final price/cost.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

(k) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(2) Section 2 - Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP.

(a) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s)taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offeror shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

(b) For all contracts, the offeror shall provide data on all manufacturing warranty returns. Data shall delineate total number of warranty returns, number of Could Not Duplicate (CND), number of failures attributable to GFE component failures, and number and nature of failures attributable to the offeror's delivered product.

(3)Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire maybe completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to the technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the AP-PPE inbox no later than the proposal due date, to christine.m.halamoutis.civ@army.mil, andrew.j.richard12.civ@army.mil and elizabeth.m.

The offeror shall include in their Past Performance Volume a list of all the POCs nordell.civ@army.mil.

who were sent a questionnaire. The POC List shall include the following fields: Solicitation Number;

Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC (month/day).

(4)Section 4 - New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its offices and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.

(5)Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors' facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

(6) Past Performance Information regarding Subcontracting. For proposed major subcontractors, recency and relevancy is defined as above. A major subcontractor is defined as an entity that will be performing 40% or more of the work, as related to cost/price.

(iv) Volume IV Cost/Price

All price information shall be addressed within the price volume only. The Government will evaluate each Offeror's proposal to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors shall use the price template provided as Attachment03 - Proposal Template with CLIN Structure, to prepare its price proposal. While there is no page limit for the Price Proposal, offerors must provide the necessary detail and supporting information to address the solicitation requirements and to allow a complete analysis of each line-item price, this should be limited to 3 pages if the offeror is able to provide sufficient details.

(1) Electronic Copy. Electronic links are only permissible within the Cost Volume. If files contain links, the links must be intact and maintained through all revisions. The Offeror shall not include pivot tables in Excel spreadsheets. The Offeror shall provide a completed price template provided as Attachment 03 - Proposal Template with CLIN structure, to prepare its price proposal.

(2) Compliance. Failure to comply with the RFP requirements for Cost information may result in an adverse and reduce or eliminate of being selected for assessment of an offeror's proposal its chance the information in award. Offerors shall ensure that presented this volume is consistent and correlates with the in the proposal volumes.information contained other

(3) General Instructions. In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.402and 15.403-1, certified cost or pricing data are not required based on the fact that adequate competition is expected for this procurement. Information other than certified cost or pricing data may be provided in the contractor format providing that sufficient information is made available. The information submitted shall be prepared following the instructions in FAR 15.403-5.If after receipt of proposals the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions at FAR15.403-1 apply, the Offeror may be required to submit cost or pricing data. Additionally, in the event that adequate competition is not obtained, the Contracting Officer may incorporate FAR 52.215-20 entitled, "Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data," into the solicitation and request a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. There are no page limitations for this volume. Proposal information included in this volume which is not directly related to Cost will be disregarded.

(v) VOLUME V - SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARDDOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS

/REPRESENTATIONS

Certifications and Representations -Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

(1) Section I - Executive Summary: A letter will include:

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

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

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

(2) Section II - Solicitation Documents

Each offeror will complete blank lines and provide signatures for the contract sections indicated without modification to the files. An authorized official of the firm will sign the Standard Form 33, amendments and all certifications requiring original signature. If this individual is not an officer of the company, the proposal will be accompanied by some form of written evidence of the individual's authority to bind the company, under contract, to a particular course of action. This might include such evidence as a written delegation of said authority, signed by an officer of the company. An Adobe Acrobat file, ".pdf" will be created to capture the signatures for submission in the administrative volume.

a. Originating RFP section: A signed and completed Solicitation/Contract Form and any subsequent amendments.

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

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

(3) Section III - Company Points of Contact (POC) The offeror will provide Company points of contact (POC), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) POCs, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) POC's, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, Unique Entity Identification (UEI) number and TIN for prime and subcontractors.

(4) Section IV - Representations and Certifications The offeror will complete representations and certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM). In SAM, the offeror will enter the North American Industry Classification System (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/.

(5) Section VI - Signed Teaming Agreements

If applicable, the offeror will 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 315210 as well as the subcontractor's POC with the address, phone, email and CAGE for verification-if necessary.

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME V - SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD

DOCUMENTSAND CERTIFICATIONS /REPRESENTATIONS.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

*** Updated August 6, 2025***

L.X. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in Proposal Evaluation

L.X.1. Use of AI tools in Support of Evaluations: The Government may employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of offeror proposals. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with request for task order proposal / solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk.

L.X.2 Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgements, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, best value determinations, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed Government personnel. The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any AI tool.

L.X.3 Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: The AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. The AI tool will be an output-only system.

Any generated report data is not saved. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.

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 evaluation factors ranked in their order of importance:(1) Technical (Cut & Sew Manufacturing), (2) Quality,(3) Past Performance and (4) Cost/Price. Technical is more important than quality, quality is more important than past performance. All of the non-cost/price factors when combined are approximately equal to Cost /Price, in accordance with FAR 15.304(e)(2). The Government is willing to pay more if an increase in the technical merit of the proposal under the Best Value Continuum tradeoff process justifies and is in the best interest of the Government. However, the Cost/Price Factor may become more significant in contributing to the source selection decision if competing proposals are technically comparable.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the technical and quality factors. Past Performance must receive a rating of no less than Unknown Confidence.

NOTE: Offerors are being cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. It is anticipated that only one (1) award will be made.

ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO COST/PRICE.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors 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 described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical, Quality and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors' proposals are substantially the same.

Evaluation Factors and Supporting Information

Evaluation Factor

Rating Method

1 W. L. Gore Certification Acceptable or Unacceptable

Technical (Cut & Sew Manufacturing) (Factor)

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

3 Quality (Factor) Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Past Performance (Factor)

Confidence Rating

5 Cost/Price (Factor) Price Reasonableness

Phase I : Factor 1 - W. L. Gore Certification

In order to be able to produce and deliver ensembles under this contract, the prime contractor or its industry partner must provide documentation showing current certification from W. L.

Gore that it is authorized to use its material for cut and sew purposes. This is a mandatory requirement of this procurement. If the offeror does not demonstrate that they meet the requirement at the time of proposal submission, they will be eliminated from consideration for award and no additional volumes of the offeror's proposal will be evaluated.

Phase II: Factors 2-5

Factor 2: Technical/Cut & Sew Manufacturing - The Technical/Cut & Sew Manufacturing Factor will receive a combined technical/risk rating of each Offeror's approach to performing the cut and sew manufacturing effort for the IFS to the SOW.

Offeror's ability to provide safe storage, protection and management of the high volume of Government Furnished Material to be provided under the contract will be evaluated. Also, the packaging, handling, storage, and shipment of the completed ensembles are critical for meeting the shelf-life requirements, these are clearly defined within the SOW.

Program risk will be evaluated to ensure the offeror has a sufficient approach to address the technical and schedule risks associated with the requirements of the contract. This is inclusive of the offeror's ability to immediately being production of the IFS systems, their approach to effectively manage subcontractors (if applicable), materials ordering, production schedules, shipping and delivery, and accurate invoicing. The government will also evaluate the risk reduction method proposed to reduce the chances that the production facility will stop production for more than five (5) consecutive days or more than fifteen (15) days within a thirty (30) day period. The government will evaluate the offeror's planned approach to the first article tests, as well as the government's production lot testing.

The government will evaluate the proposed method to maximize production capacity for each size and describe how a surge requirement will be met from 1,000 to 5,500 integrated foot ware systems every 90 days should the need arise. The government will evaluate the offeror's experience in producing and assembling items of this type and whether or not the offeror's manufacturing capability is internal to the offeror's company or if some or all parts of the manufacturing process will be the responsibility of a subcontractor, IAW the SOW.

Factor 3: Quality Factor. The Quality Factor will receive a combined technical/risk rating of each offeror's approach to quality. The AP-PPE Mod ensembles are critical life support items and hence require implementation of higher-level contract quality requirements. The Government will evaluate each Offeror's approach in maintaining quality management and performing quality assurance for all AP-PPE Mod ensembles of the SOW. The Government will evaluate how the offeror will maintain a quality management system, ISO 9001 Quality Management System certification, which will be incorporated in FAR 52.246-11, Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement to ensure the AP-PPE Mod ensembles meet the requirements of the Government's SOW. The offeror is required to have a current ISO 9001 Quality Management System certificate. The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed implement in-process and final inspection procedures.

Factor 4: Past Performance Factor. Each offeror's past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy, and quality to establish an overall confidence rating.

Factor 5: Cost/Price. Pricing will be evaluated for fair and reasonable price IAW FAR Part 15.4 procedures. The analytical techniques and procedures prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 may be used singularly, or in combination with others to ensure the costs are fair and reasonable. Total Price will be compared for award determination. There is an expectation of competition for this requirement; thus, Offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The offeror's price proposal shall represent the Offeror's best effort to respond to the solicitation. Price must be determined to be fair and reasonable to be eligible for award.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1 (g), proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Offerors shall use sufficient detail and provide documentation to explain any potential lack of balance. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

D. EVALUATIONAPPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The Technical factor

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below) This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1 -

COMBINED

TECHNICAL/RISK

RATINGS

Color Rati ng

Description

Blue Outs tandi ng

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

Purple Goo d

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.

Green Acce ptabl e

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

Yellow Mar ginal

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

Red Una ccep table

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 not awardable.

TABLE 2 -

Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2. Quality Factor: In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating the Quality Factor and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 and 2 above). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining quality ratings.

3. Past Performance Factor: The Government will evaluate the offeror's record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror's (and major subcontractor's) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. For the purposes of this SSP/Requirement, major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror's overall team who are expected to perform40 percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a

"neutral confidence rating" and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the

NAICS315210.

Note: For best value determination purposes, a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is considered more favorably than "Neutral Confidence".

b. The prime offeror shall submit no more than three (3) contract past performance efforts (narratives).

Of the three (3) contract past performance efforts(narratives) submitted, only one (1) can be from major subcontractors. The offeror may submit multiple DOs/TOs under one (1) contract number, however, each DO/TO is considered a standalone effort and will be evaluated independently. The specific DO/TO number must be provided for the effort. If only an IDIQ contract number is submitted, the government will not evaluate that past performance effort.

c. The past performance factor considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

i. RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror's past performance. "Recent" means any contract under which performance has taken place within the last three (3) years as of issuance of this solicitation.

ii. RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 2) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)code 315210 required by the RFP and/or efforts that demonstrates the Offeror's ability to perform cut and sew operation of military (preferably Chemical and Biological) W.L. Gore manufactured stretch materials/garments of high volume and utilizing fabrics that provide protection against military unique and toxic industrial chemicals.

Some of the factors in determining similarities include: the nature and extent of the work involved, skill sets required, contract dollar value, contract duration, and supported organization.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

Past Performance In performing the Past Performance factor evaluation, evaluators will apply the following rating schemes at Table 3.

iii. Quality Assessment: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror's past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. Additional past performance information may be obtained and considered, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with CORs, Program Managers/Government Leads, Contracting Officers and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

TABLE 3 -

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions. The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without discussions. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussion, if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Discussions may be conducted with all Offerors to enhance Government understanding of proposals, allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal, or facilitate the Government's evaluation process. Should discussions be conducted, Offeror responses will be considered in making the selection decision. Proposal changes submitted by the Offeror in response to Evaluation Notices will be subject to evaluation. Proposal revisions, to include any final price adjustments, will be requested simultaneously if discussions are conducted. Offerors shall submit all proposal changes, technical and price, in response to Evaluation Notices. Any portion of the proposal that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated and dated. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its Title.

10 GENERAL GREENE AVE, NATICK…