A07_Amendment_0009_W91CRB-16-R-0010.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

Vital Torso Protection - Full Rate Production

Request for Proposals -

Amendment 0009 - See Continuation Page

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

U 1 25

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Feb-2018

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 W91CRB-16-R-0010

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-May-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 1 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

02-Feb-2018

CODE

ACC - APG - W91CRB

BLDG 4310

6515 INTEGRITY COURT

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD 21005-3013

W91CRB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91CRB-16-R-0010

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

AMENDMENT 0009

The following changes have been made to the RFP:

1. Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices - The Factor V - Small Business language has been revised. Revisions are provided in red.

2. Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award - The Factor I - Technical Sub-factor 3 - Size Fit, and Area of

Coverage and Factor V - Small Business language has been revised. Revisions are provided in red.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

General Instructions

Section L of the solicitation specifies the instructions for proposal. To be considered for award, the Offeror must submit a written proposal.

Offerors may submit up to two proposals per plate variant, however, offerors are only eligible to receive one award per variant.

The proposals shall remain valid for a minimum of one hundred and twenty (120) days and shall not contain classified data/information.

All offerors submittals under this RFP are considered proprietary data and will be protected accordingly.

Offerors shall submit proposals electronically via email. Offerors shall deliver the written portion of the proposals electronically to Contract Specialist, George Hubbard at george.b.hubbard5.civ@mail.mil.

Offerors shall use Microsoft Office 2013 software or higher to create the required .xlsx, .pptx and .docx files. Adobe Acrobat Version XI or higher shall be used to create .pdf files. The electronic proposal shall consist of separate files as set forth and named in the table below:

File Name File Content Page Limit Factor1-Tech.docx or.pdf Technical Proposal 10 (single sided) Independent Test Report.pdf Technical Proposal no limit Factor2-PriceTEP.xlsx Price 2 (single sided) Factor2-Priceinfo.docx or .pdf Price no limit Factor3-PRAG.docx or .pdf Past Performance no limit Factor4-QMS.docx or .pdf Quality Management System no limit Factor5-SUBCP.docx or .pdf Subcontracting Plan no limit

Offerors shall submit all information that the Offeror wishes to have considered with the initial proposal. The Offeror shall present the information in the proposal in a clear, coherent, and concise manner sufficient to demonstrate a clear understanding of contract requirements and method of accomplishing these requirements.

Offeror’s proposals with vague or terse statements such as “will comply,” “noted,” and “understood,” etc. are not acceptable.

Offerors shall submit only essential matters sufficient to clearly present their approach and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Technical portion of the proposals will be limited to ten (10) pages (not including the ballistic test report) per plate variant. (e.g. if the Offeror is bidding on two variants the proposal may contain up to 20 pages but no more than 10 per variant) A page printed on both sides will be counted as two (2) pages. All text shall be typewritten and on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper. Drawings or other graphics should be reduced to the extent legibility is not lost. Each page shall be single spaced with a minimum of twelve (12) point Arial font and one (1) inch margins. All pages shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date, and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. The price proposal does not have a page limitation.

The Government will consider how well the Offeror complied with these instructions when evaluating the Offeror’s capability to perform the prospective contract. The Government will consider an Offeror’s noncompliance with these instructions or any attempt to take advantage of loopholes in these instructions to be indicative of the type of conduct that it may expect from the Offeror during contract performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability accordingly. Offerors are advised to ask the KO for clarification on any part of these instructions that they do not understand.

The evaluation will be limited to the information provided and nothing will be assumed. To meet the minimum requirements, the Offeror shall furnish enough definitive, supportive information on the factor areas to effectively describe the Offeror’s capability to adequately support the solicitation requirements. The Source Selection Team may evaluate proposals furnishing a more comprehensive, in-depth technical program that can display the Offeror’s extensive abilities, experience, organizational management expertise, and capability, which more than adequately support the solicitation requirements, as exceeding the minimum requirements. The evaluators will utilize the Offeror’s response to the solicitation as a vehicle for validating the Offeror’s understanding and capability to perform as it relates to each of the evaluation criteria.

The Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent its best efforts to respond to the solicitation. All inconsistencies, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price shall be explained in the proposal. Unexplained inconsistencies resulting from the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the nature and scope of work for the overall solicitation or their lack of financial ability to perform the contract may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

Offerors are advised that prior to award the Government may, at its discretion, incorporate portions of the successful Contractor’s proposal, including information provided by the Offeror during discussions, into the contract.

Offerors shall deliver the Hard Armor Protective Inserts (HAPI) Bid samples (See Table 15) to Mr. Brian Smith at the following address:

Aberdeen Test Center APG ATTN: Brian Smith/TEDT-AT-FPP 400 Colleran Road Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD 21005 Phone: 410-278-6151

Offerors shall deliver the deconstructed / dry lay ups to MAJ Nicole Clark at the following address:

PM Soldier Protective Equipment Attn: MAJ Nicole Clark 10170 Beach Road, Building 328T Fort Belvoir, VA 22060 Phone: 703-704-4318

Table 15 – Bid Sample Quantities

ESAPI ESBI XSAPI XSBI

X-Small (XS) 1 N/A 1 N/A

Small (SM) 1 1 1 1

Medium (MD) 1 1 1 1

Medium (Dry-Layup) 1 1 1 1

Large (LG) 1 1 1 1

X-Large (XL) 1 N/A 1 N/A

Small-Long (SM-L) 1 N/A 1 N/A

Total 7 4 7 4

The Government will use the Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool (ASSIST) during the conduct of this acquisition, to support the proposal evaluation and source selection process. The Government will use a separate tool, the ASSIST2Industry, along with ASSIST to accomplish all exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306, Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.

ASSIST2Industry provides the ability for the Government to issue, and the offerors to receive and respond to, all Evaluation Notices (ENs) in a secure online environment. In order to initiate the use of ASSIST2Industry, the Government requires the names, company titles, telephone numbers, and email addresses of two (2) individuals that the Offeror has designated as responsible for receiving and responding to Government ENs through ASSIST2Industry. The designation of two (2) individuals is ensuring the availability of one individual if the other individual is not available. The Offeror must be able or capable of submitting the required information regarding these two (2) individuals with the Offeror's proposal and it must be included in the cover letter.

After the solicitation's closing date, the Government will establish an account in ASSIST2Industry for each individual identified by the Offeror’s proposal submitted in response to this solicitation. The two individuals named by the Offeror will be authorized access to that account. The system will generate and send two (2) emails to each individual. One of the emails will contain the individual's ASSIST2Industry username. The other email will contain the individual's temporary password. Using the provided username and temporary password, each individual can then go to https://assist2industry.army.mil/

NOTE: The first time a user logs in, the user will be required to change the temporary password before the user can use the site. Whenever the Government issues ENs to the Offeror through ASSIST2Industry, the Government's KO will notify the Offeror through a medium independent of ASSIST2Industry (e.g., e-mail) that the Offeror has ENs in ASSIST2Industry waiting for a response. There will be no ENs in ASSIST2Industry until such notice is issued by the KO.

Offerors can contact the ASSIST2Industry helpdesk at (609) 562-7050 or (609) 562-7031 for any technical assistance.

The offerors are cautioned that the system generated emails referred to above are intended for administrative purposes only. Receipt of these emails does NOT constitute the commencement of any type of exchange with the Offeror IAW FAR 15.306(a), (b), or (d) (i.e., clarifications, communications, or discussions). Receipt of these emails does not signify that the Government has made a competitive range determination IAW FAR 15.306(c) or that the Offeror's proposal will be included in the competitive range when the Government makes that determination. All notifications that any type of exchange with the Offeror has commenced and the Offeror has ENs available to respond to, or any notification that the Offeror's proposal KO, independently of the ASSIST2industry system.

Factor I - Technical:

The following describes the technical information Offerors are required to provide:

The Offeror’s technical proposal shall consist of the submission of dry layup, bid samples, and technical narrative for each variant in their proposal as follows.

Dry Layup Bid Samples: The Government will physically inspect the Dry Layup Samples to determine uniform area of coverage, workmanship, composition, and orientation.

Bid Samples: The Government will physically inspect the Bid Samples to determine the size, fit, and area of coverage as well as to evaluate the design and workmanship of the product.

Proposal Narratives: Proposal narratives must demonstrate that the minimum requirements for Technical Sub- Factors 1-4 (below) are met IAW the AR/PD 13-01 Revision D Change 5, in addition demonstrating that requirements are met with independent test data. Consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and the Government will consider deficiencies in determining a technical rating.

1) Sub-Factor 1: Ballistic Protection. Offerors shall submit test data, as documented in test data sheets from ATC, which supports passing test requirements of the Preliminary Design Model (PDM) Protocol in the AR/PD 13-01 Revision D Change 5. The Offeror shall submit test data to verify ballistic performance.

2) Sub-Factor 2: Weight. All PDM test articles and Bid Samples (except the Dry Layup Bid Samples) shall be submitted to ATC, shall be weighed using a calibrated scale, and be documented in the ATC ballistic test report that the Offeror will submit as part of the proposal.

3) Sub-Factor 3: Size, Fit, and Area of Coverage. Offerors shall submit HAPI sample hardware that must fit properly into the list of items described in AR/PD 13-01 Revision D Change 5, paragraph 3.5.1 (OTV, IOTV, SPCS, TEP MSV), provide uniform areal density per 3.8.1 and comply with the Government drawings and PD requirements in Paragraphs 3.5.3 and 3.5.4.

4) Sub-Factor 4: Design and Workmanship. Offerors shall submit bid samples to demonstrate the product proposed is able to meet all minimum product design and workmanship requirements as stated in AR/PD 13-01 Revision D Change 5, Section 4.9.1. Additionally, Offerors shall provide a recommendation, which describes a realistic Service Life time period of their proposed design(s). The Government will not evaluate this recommendation as part of the source selection evaluation criteria, but the recommendation will be used to inform future VTP Service Life requirements.

Factor II - Price

In accordance with FAR 15.403-(1)(b)(1) adequate competition is anticipated in response to this solicitation.

Therefore certified cost or pricing data is not required, and data other than certified cost or pricing data is currently required in accordance with FAR 15.403-3. However, the Government reserves the right to request and evaluate certified cost or pricing data in a format prescribed in FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 prior to award, if it is determined by the Contracting Officer that adequate competition does not exist.

In accordance with FAR 15.403-5(b) the Contracting officer may specify the format of cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data. Therefore, each offeror shall submit a completed and totaled Section B, completed “Factor2-PriceTEP.xlsx” in electronic formats via email, and accompanying narrative, “Factor2- Priceinfo.docx or .pdf” in enough detail to describe the underlying basis and amounts of the proposed unit prices.

The Offeror shall complete the Factor2-PriceTEP.xlsx matrix (excel spreadsheet) which includes all pricing information in Section B. Offerors must provide prices for the quantities indicated including range prices. Failure to provide prices for any quantity may result in rejection of that proposal as unacceptable.

The total evaluated price (TEP) will be the total of all CLINs at the assigned weightings contained in the Factor2- PriceTEP.xlsx matrix and will be the evaluated price for price fairness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

CLIN 0009 represents Cost Plus Fixed Fee Developmental efforts associated with various improvements that may be tasked to improve the VTP. For Evaluation purposes, the CLIN is prepopulated with a not to exceed (NTE) value of $20 million for the contract period of performance (48 months) and $1 million as part of the Total Evaluated Price. This CLIN amount is normalized for Government evaluation purposes and is necessary to establish the appropriate total funding contract ceiling. Normally, cost type CLINs are evaluated for cost realism. Since this Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLIN is normalized, it will NOT be evaluated for cost realism at the base contract level. Cost realism analysis, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), will be conducted at the task order level. Appropriate requirements will be set forth at that time.

The Offeror will provide the monthly Minimum Sustaining Rate (MSR) (in number of plates) defined as the rate that is necessary to keep production lines open while maintaining a base of responsive vendors and suppliers. The MSR rate quantity precludes start-up costs in the case of a production break; or the quantity that the Contractor is willing to accept and produce at a reasonable cost. The Offeror shall include average monthly cost to run at the MSR rate.

The Offeror will provide the Economical Production Rate, defined as the most efficient annual production rate (in number of plates) for each budget year at which the item can be produced with existing or planned plant capacity and tooling, with one shift a day running for eight hours a day and five days a week (1-8-5).

The Offeror shall provide the Maximum Production Rate, defined as the maximum capacity rate that a contractor can produce monthly (in number of plates) with extant or planned tooling. The Maximum Production Rate will include the number of assembly shifts and testing shifts (if distinct) and the number of months needed to increase to the Maximum Production Rate from the MSR and the number of months needed to increase to the Maximum Production Rate from the Economical Production Rate (1-8-5).

Except for CLIN 0009, all of the CLINs under this solicitation are fixed priced and do not require demonstration of an adequate accounting system. CLIN 0009 is a Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLIN and does require demonstration of an adequate accounting system in accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(3). HOWEVER, since CLIN 0009 is normalized for proposal purposes, accounting system adequacy will NOT be evaluated at the base contract level. Accounting system adequacy will, however, be evaluated at the task order level. Appropriate requirements will be set forth at that time.

Factor III - Past Performance

Offerors shall submit a list of all Government contracts (prime and major subcontracts in performance or awarded) during the past five (5) years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Relevant efforts, defined as similar in nature to the effort required by this solicitation involving engineering development and/or production of body armor. Past performance shall provide data concerning the prime Offeror first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall organize this volume into the following sections:

1) Section 1 - Contract Descriptions.

This section shall include the following information in the following format:

a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number. If the work performed was as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and POC within the prime contractor’s organization (name, and current address, email address, telephone, and fax numbers).

b) Government contracting activity, current address, PCO’s name, email address, telephone and fax numbers.

c) Government’s technical representative/COR, current email address, telephone, and fax numbers.

d) Government contract administration activity and the AKO’s name, current email address, telephone, and fax numbers.

e) Government contract administration activity's Pre-Award Monitor's name, current email 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 & Materials (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 of work.

k) Final or projected final and 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 describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

(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.

(b) The Offeror shall list each time the delivery schedule received revision and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. The Offeror shall address all Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver with respect to causes and corrective actions. The Offeror shall also provide a 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 Offeror shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

(c) 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 Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) component failures, and number and nature of failures attributable to the Offeror’s delivered product.

3) Section 3 - Subcontracts Offerors shall provide an outline of how they will assign the effort required by the solicitation for performance within the Offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the Prime Offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work for each by citing the applicable Government SOW subparagraph number.

This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 20% of the total proposed price.

4) Section 4 - New Corporate Entities New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers 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.

5) Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire For all contracts identified in Section 1, Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires must be completed and submitted. The Offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire and email the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POC's shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and email the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Officer theresa.s.quick.civ@mail.mil, prior to thirty (30) calendar days of the solicitation response deadline. The Offeror shall also email to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POC’s who received a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list prior to twenty (20) calendar days of the solicitation response deadline. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name; Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC Email Address; Date Emailed to POC (month/day).

Factor IV – Quality Management System

The Offeror shall submit the Quality Manual and supporting documentation as part of the proposal, meeting the minimum requirements detailed in the contract. The submission shall show that the Offeror understands and intends to meet the requirement for ISO 9001:2008 compliance. The submission must include the scope of the quality management system, the documented procedures established for the quality management system, and a description of the interaction between the processes of the quality management system. The Offeror shall submit all policies or procedures describing the activities needed to implement the ISO 9001:2008 compliant system in their entirety. Offerors are encouraged to submit records or objective evidence of compliance to ISO 9001:2008. If the Offeror is ISO 9001:2008 registered, submission of the current registration certificate is encouraged as well as a description of the interaction between the processes of the quality management system.

Factor V - Small Business Participation Approach

The current SB goals for this project are 19%. Of that 19% goal, at least 5% is to be placed with small disadvantaged businesses, including HBCU/MI, 3.59% with WOSB, 1.3% is to be placed with HUBZone businesses, and 3% is to be placed with SDVOSBs. The Percentage goals for this solicitation apply only to the total dollar value of the work subcontracted. The SB Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation.

Sub-Factor 1: Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan. The SB Subcontracting Plan is a requirement for award to a large business and the Government will incorporate it into any resultant contract. This plan is only required from an Offeror which is itself other than a SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, or HBCU/MI. The SB Subcontracting Plan describes the Offeror’s approach to maximizing opportunities for small businesses in this effort, relative to the subcontracted portion’s value. The Offeror’s will present SB Subcontracting Plan percentages in terms of total dollars of work for each SB category, divided by the total value of subcontracts (including options).

1) The required elements of the SB Subcontracting Plan are set forth by FAR 52.219-9, DFARS 252.219-7003, and AFARS appendix DD, and the Offeror should organize the proposal to address these elements in similar order demonstrating that each element is included. All small businesses and HBCU/MIincluded in the SB Subcontracting Plan shall be specifically identified to facilitate compliance with 252.219- 7003(g). The Offeror shall provide the CAGE code or DUNS number for each proposed subcontractor, and include identification of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code (appropriate to the principal nature of the planned subcontract) supporting each proposed subcontractor’s size status. The Offeror’s plan shall depict the percentage values of the option requirements separately. The information in the SB Subcontracting Plan must properly correlate with that of the Offeror’s SB Participation Plan.

2) SB Subcontracting Plan Objectives. The Offeror is requested to consider the Government’s subcontracting objectives for this acquisition in responding to this factor, as follows:

SB: 23%

SDB: 5%

WOSB: 5%

HUBZone SB: 3% SDVOSBs: 3%

For each category in which the Offeror’s SB Subcontracting Plan contains goals are below the objectives listed above, the Offeror shall provide a detailed explanation as to why.

Sub-Factor 2: SB Participation Plan. The Offeror shall describe their approach to maximizing opportunities for SB in the proposed effort, both in terms of the percentage of overall contract value (SB Participation Plan) and in terms of the percentage of the subcontracted portion’s value (SB Subcontracting Plan). The SB Participation Plan evaluation will constitute the SB Participation Factor’s adjectival rating for weighted consideration amongst the solicitation’s other factors. As described at section SB Subcontracting Plan, all Offeror’s lacking small business status shall provide a separate SB Subcontracting Plan which is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather a requirement for award to an “other than small” business.

The cover page for the Offeror’s SB Participation volume shall summarize the Offeror’s SB Participation goals and summarize the Offeror’s SB Subcontracting percentage goals, as follows:

Table 16 – SB Participation/Subcontracting Percentage Goals

SB Participation Plan Total

SB Subcontracting Plan Total*

SB 19% 23%

SDB 5% 5%

WOSB 3.59% 5%

HUBZone SB 1.3% 3%

SDVOSB 3% 3%

*Offerors which qualify as a small businesses shall enter N/A in these columns

1) SB Participation Plan. This plan is required from all Offerors, regardless of the Offeror’s size status. The Offeror’s will present SB Participation Plan percentages in terms of total dollars of work for each SB category, divided by the total contract value. The Offeror’s plan shall depict the percentage values of the option requirements separately from the base requirement.

The Offeror shall identify the extent and nature of participation of SBs, WOSBs, HUBZone SBs, VOSBs, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) and HBCU/MI in the performance of the proposed contract.

The Offeror’s shall identify their own participation as a SB, WOSB, HUBZone SB, VOSB, SDVOSB, or HBCU/MI and include the Offeror in the percentages.

The plan shall include, at a minimum:

a) The name and DUNS number (or CAGE code) of each of the firm(s) included in the plan

b) A copy of the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) profile for each of the firm(s) included in the plan

c) Discussion of the specific components to be produced or services to be performed by each firm

d) Identification of the NAICS code (appropriate to the principal nature of the planned subcontract) supporting each firm’s size status

e) The estimated total dollar value (base and options) subcontracted to each firm

f) The estimated total dollar value (base and options) subcontracted to each SB category

g) The percentage of total contract value (base and options) subcontracted to each firm

h) The percentage of total contract value (base and options) subcontracted to each SB category

The Offeror shall provide evidence of any enforceable commitments in place between itself and the participating small businesses. Each participation percentage shall be accompanied by detailed supporting documentation regarding the individual commitments. The Offeror shall include evidence of compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 in prior contracts containing the clause. The Offeror shall provide this information at minimum, for each of the contracts discussed in the Offeror’s Past Performance volume.

2) SB Participation Plan Goals. The Government’s minimum requirements for Participation Plan goals for this acquisition are as follows:

SB: 19%

SDB: 5%

WOSB: 3.59%

HUBZone SB: 1.3% SDVOSBs: 3%

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION APPROACH

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a competitive acquisition to award multiple contracts pursuant to FAR 52.216-27, Single or Multiple Awards, to meet the requirements for Vital Torso (Hard Body Armor) Protection. The Government intends to award up to two contracts for each of the four (ESAPI, XSAPI, ESBI, and XSBI) hard armor plate variants (between four and eight contracts in total). Large Businesses are encouraged to submit proposals for each or both of the torso plate variants (ESAPI and XSAPI).

The Government intends to award the side plates (ESBI and XSBI) as set asides for small businesses. Each Small Business (SB) will be encouraged to submit proposals for all four of the plate variants, one plate variant, or any combination of plate variants. If the Government determines that none of the Small Business proposals meet the criteria for award, proposals rated as Unacceptable, then a request will be issued and Large Business proposals for the side plates awards will be considered.

Each awardee will be required to deliver the contract First article test (FAT) quantities and System Level Test (SLT) quantities not later than (NLT) one hundred twenty (120) days after contract award. Delivery of production articles will begin NLT ninety (90) days after production authorization. Except as authorized by a waiver, production authorization will not be granted until after achievement of FAT approval and a favorable Production Readiness Review.

Each award for each plate type (ESAPI, XSAPI, ESBI, and XSBI) will be based on the best value proposal as determined to be most beneficial to the Government. The Government will give appropriate consideration to the following five (5) Factors: Technical, Price, Past Performance, Quality Management System, and SB Approach.

The Technical Factor is the most important factor and is significantly more important than Past Performance, Quality Management System, and SB Approach, which are of equal importance to one another. To be considered for award, the proposal’s Technical Factor must be rated acceptable or better. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance, Small Business Approach, and Quality Management System Factors as Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposal’s Past Performance, Small Business Approach, and Quality Management System Factors must all be rated Acceptable to be considered for award. All non-cost factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Offerors are cautioned that each award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced Offeror.

For the Torso Plates (ESAPI, XSAPI), each award will be based on a Best Value evaluation approach allowing for a tradeoff determination between the Non-cost Factors and the Price Factor. The solicitation for Torso Plates will be on a Full and Open Competition basis. Small or Large businesses may compete for the Torso Plate awards.

For the Side Plates (ESBI, XSBI), each award will be based on a Best Value Tradeoff between the Non-Cost Factors and the Price Factor using open competition among Small Businesses (Small Business Set Aside).

For either or both Side Plates, if the Source Selection Team determines that there are no acceptable Small Business proposals, the Government will dissolve the SBSA for Side Plates and the Large Business Offerors proposing on the Torso Plates will have the opportunity to propose on one or both of the Side Plates. Side Plate proposals are unacceptable if one or more factors rates Unacceptable or the Price Factor does not meet the solicitation requirements.

B. SUMMARY OF FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Factor I - Technical: The Technical Factor is comprised of four (4) Sub-Factors listed below:

Sub-Factor 1: Ballistic Protection [Adjectival Rated as Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, or Unacceptable] Sub-Factor 2: Weight [Adjectival Rated as Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, or Unacceptable] Sub-Factor 3: Size, Fit, and Area of Coverage [Acceptable/Unacceptable] Sub-Factor 4: Design and Workmanship [Acceptable/Unacceptable]

Sub-Factor 1 is slightly more important than Sub-Factor 2. Sub-Factors 1 and 2, taken together, are significantly more important than the remaining combined Sub-Factors 3 and 4. For consideration of award, all Sub-Factors must rate acceptable or better.

Factor II - Price: Total Evaluated Price and Price Reasonableness

Factor III - Past Performance: [Acceptable/Unacceptable]

Factor IV - Quality Management System: [Acceptable/Unacceptable]

Sub-Factor 1: ISO Quality Manual and Crosswalk Matrix Sub-Factor 2: Subcontractor/Supplier Management Plan (SMP)

Factor V - Small Business Subcontracting Approach: [Acceptable/Unacceptable]

Sub-Factor 1: Small Business Subcontracting Plan [Acceptable/Unacceptable] Sub-Factor 2: Small Business Participation Plan [Acceptable/Unacceptable]

C. EVALUATION APPROACH Factor I - Technical

Product Demonstration Model (PDM) Test Quantities/Report: Prior to submission of any proposals, the Offerors will send PDM samples to Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) in the required quantities stated in Table 2 to satisfy each variant against which they are proposing. The Offerors need to plan for sufficient time to be given to ATC to complete the PDM protocol and provide a report that will be submitted as part of their proposal submission due on the solicitation closing date. The PDM samples shall be IAW the Purchase Description (PD) AR/PD 13-01 Rev D Change 5, Personal Protective Equipment Vital Torso Protection, and represent the design, construction, and performance offered for FAT and production (see PD for further details concerning the requirements and associated testing).

Table 2 – PDM Quantities by Size and Plate Variant

X-Small (XS) 6 N/A 10 N/A

Small (SM) 8 9 12 12

Small-Long (SM-L) 8 N/A 10 N/A

Medium (MD) 9 10 16 12

Large (LG) 8 19 12 21

X-Large (XL) 8 N/A 10 N/A

TOTAL 47 38 70 45

The Offerors shall submit the test data (not the PDM samples themselves) from ATC as part of their proposal submissions. The Source Selection Team will use the ballistic and weight test data from the PDM test reports to assign adjectival ratings for Sub Factor 1 (Ballistic Protection) and Sub Factor 2 (Weight).

Bid Sample Quantities for Proposal submission: Offerors shall also submit additional bid samples per Table 3 (representative of the design, construction, and performance offered for FAT and production) to ATC and they will weigh each bid sample (except for the Dry Layup). The bid samples will be submitted as part of the proposal and used to assess Sub-Factor 3 (Size, Fit, and Area of Coverage) and Sub-Factor 4 (Design and Workmanship). A Dry Layup will be supplied and consists of an unfinished plate sample (with spall cover removed or cut back) sufficient to indicate the internal construction required to build a plate prior to the assembly process. The bid samples will be physically inspected to determine the size, fit, and area of coverage and to evaluate the design and workmanship of the HAPI variants, which may include X-Ray and/or Computerized Tomography. The Government will return all bid samples to the Offeror NLT three hundred and sixty-five (365) days after receipt or upon written request from the Offeror if the bid sample is required before the three hundred and sixty-five (365) day timeframe.

Table 3 – Bid Sample Quantities

X-Small (XS) 1 N/A 1 N/A

Small (SM) 1 1 1 1

Medium (MD) 1 1 1 1

Medium (Dry-Layup) 1 1 1 1

Large (LG) 1 1 1 1

X-Large (XL) 1 N/A 1 N/A

Small-Long (SM-L) 1 N/A 1 N/A

TOTALS 7 4 7 4

The Source Selection Team will evaluate the technical narrative as part of the Technical Proposal set forth below.

Proposals must demonstrate that the Offeror has met the requirements for Sub-Factors 1-4 IAW the PD, in addition to providing independent test data demonstrating that the bid sample can meet the requirements of the PD. An Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated by considering the independent test data (Sub Factors 1 and 2), the Hard Armor Protective Insert (HAPI) Bid Samples (Sub Factor 3 and 4), and all assigned strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies from the proposal. The result will be a technical rating for each of the Sub-Factors and an overall Technical Factor rating.

Sub-Factor 1 - Ballistic Protection (Adjectival Rated)

Test data, as documented in test data sheets from ATC, must provide ballistic test data of all sizes of the submitted design, which supports passing test requirements of the PDM Test Protocol per AR/PD 13-01 Rev D Change 5. The Offer shall submit the test data to verify ballistic performance and inform the risk and associated Adjectival Rating (Very Low Risk-Outstanding, Low Risk-Good, Moderate Risk-Acceptable, Prohibitive High Risk-Unacceptable) per Table 4. All HAPI samples submitted to the test agency to support ballistic testing for proposal submission shall be retained by the Offerors for a period of three hundred and sixty-five days (365) after contract award. The Offeror shall provide these plates to the Government, upon request, through the KO, for inspection and examination.

The Source Selection Team will base the PDM Test Score on minor and critical defects located in the PDM protocol in AR/PD 13-01 Rev D Change 5. The sample must meet the V50 for each threat per the PDM protocol.

Furthermore, if the V50 is found to be inconclusive with zero complete penetrations below the minimum V50 velocity requirement or meets the six (6) partial rule per the description in the PD, it will be considered met for the purposes of PDM testing.

Table 4 – Technical/Technical Risk Rating Sub – Factor 1 – Variant Ballistic Protection Performance

ESAPI or ESBI PDM Overall Score

PDM Test Score Adjectival Rating Risk Rating

0 Outstanding Very Low Risk

1 Good Low Risk

2 Acceptable Moderate Risk

> 3 or any Critical Defect Unacceptable Prohibitive High Risk

XSAPI PDM Score Threat D

0 Outstanding Very Low Risk

1 < 2 Good Low Risk

3 Acceptable Moderate Risk

> 4 or any Critical Defect Unacceptable Prohibitive High Risk

XSAPI PDM Score Threat X

0 < 2 Outstanding Very Low Risk

3 < 5 Good Low Risk

6 < 7 Acceptable Moderate Risk

> 8 or any Critical Defect Unacceptable Prohibitive High Risk

XSBI PDM Overall Score

0 < 4 Outstanding Very Low Risk

5 < 8 Good Low Risk

9 < 12 Acceptable Moderate Risk

> 13 or any Critical Defect Unacceptable Prohibitive High Risk

Outstanding = Blue Good = Purple

Acceptable = Green Unacceptable = Red

Sub-Factor 2 - Variant Weight Reduction (Adjectival Rated)

Test data, as documented in the test report test data sheets from ATC must provide the weights of each proposed plate (all sizes) of the submitted designs, which supports passing weight requirements in the AR/PD 13-01 Rev D Change 5, paragraph 3.5.2. ATC shall weigh all PDM samples submitted as part of the independent ballistic testing and shall document the weight in the ATC test report. Of the PDM samples submitted (see Table 2) and Bid Samples (Table 3), the Source Selection Team will use the individual plate for each size with the heaviest weight to determine the Table 5 Adjectival Rating. In addition, the Technical Narrative must clearly affirm the respective weight of each plate that the Offeror is contractually bound to deliver for FAT and all other production plates. In the event that the PDM Bid Samples and the Technical Narrative are in conflict with each other, the plate or narrative that is the highest weight for each size will be used to determine the ratings provided in Table 5 (Section J - Attachments - Table 5 - Technical/Technical Risk Rating Sub-Factor 2 - Weight). The Source Selection Team will base the overall Sub- Factor 2 Adjectival Rating on the plate size with the smallest percent weight reduction relative to the legacy HAPI weights.

Sub-Factor 3 - Size, Fit, and Area of Coverage (Rated ACCEPTABLE/ UNACCEPTABLE)

The HAPI sample hardware (See Table 3) must fit properly into the list of items described in AR PD 13-01 Revision D Change 5, paragraph 3.5.1 (OTV, IOTV, SPCS, TEP MSV), and provide uniform areal density per 3.8.1, and comply with the Government drawings and PD requirements in paragraphs 3.5.3 and 3.5.4 for thickness, height, and width only. The remaining compliance with the Government drawings and PD requirements in paragraphs 3.5.3 and 3.5.4 will be for Government Reference only and is not an evaluation criteria. Samples of each hard armor plate variant submitted for PDM testing shall undergo non-ballistic dimensional analysis, fit, and X-Ray evaluation at Aberdeen Test Center prior to ballistic testing. All non-ballistic dimensional analysis must be completed at ATC utilizing Blue light technology. Any non-ballistic test reports not meeting the criteria specified above, unless otherwise noted, will not be considered valid and will not be evaluated under the evaluation factor.

Offeror's will be evaluated and rated based on "American National Standard: Sampling Procedures and Tables for Inspection by Attributes" (ANSI/ASQ Z1.4-2008) General Inspection II and an Acceptable Quality Limit of 6.5 under Normal Inspection.

Table 6 – Dimensional Accept/Reject Criteria

Variant PDM Test Sample General

Inspection II Accept / Reject

ESAPI 23 5 1 / 2

ESBI 23 5 1 / 2

XSAPI 46 8 1 / 2

XSBI 36 8 1 / 2

Sub-Factor 4 - Design and Workmanship (Rated ACCEPTABLE/ UNACCEPTABLE)

The HAPI sample hardware (See Table 3) must demonstrate that the Offeror understands and is able to meet all minimum product design and workmanship requirements as stated in AR PD 13-01 Revision D Change 5, IAW Table 7 below.

Table 7 – Design and Workmanship Evaluation

DESIGN AND WORKMANSHIP

EVALUATION CRITERIA

PD SECTION MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE

1. Construction: Cover 3.2.1 The cover, including all edges, shall be free of cuts, holes, tears, abraded areas, wrinkles, bubbles, or creases.

There should be no visible peeling of the cover before or after any operating environment conditioning.

2. Construction: Assembly of Components by Bonding

3.2.2 There shall be no evidence of under adhered, delaminated, or otherwise separated components. No excess bonding agent will smear, clump, or be visible on the exposed surfaces of the finished body armor plates.

3. Workmanship 3.4 (Refer to text in PD)

4. Operating Requirements: Color 3.5.5 All areas of the HAPI shall be colored IAW the applicable section of the PD as specified in paragraph 4.6.5.

5. Operating Requirements: 3.5.6 3.5.6.1 3.5.6.2 3.5.6.3 4.6.6

(Refer to text in PD) Orientation and Performance Labels and Complete Plate Markings

6. Health and Safety: 3.5.7 3.5.7.2/ 4.6.7.2/

4.9

(Refer to text in PD) Personnel Hazard Inspection

7. Health and Safety:

Magnetic Influence

3.5.7 3.5.7.3 4.6.7.3

There shall be no magnetic influence on a compass at any distance from the HARD ARMOR PLATES.

Factor II - Price

The Source Selection Team will evaluate the Price based on the total evaluated price proposed for all contract line items. In addition, the Team will perform an evaluation to determine if the price in the Offeror’s proposal/s are realistic for performing the work, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal. For evaluation purposes, certain contract line items will already include a Not To Exceed (NTE) cost or price and shall not be modified but included in the total evaluated price.

Price/cost is not rated, therefore no adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate cost or price. The total evaluated price (TEP) will be the total of all CLINs at the assigned weightings contained in the Factor2-PriceTEP.xlsx matrix, which will be the evaluated price for price fairness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) as discussed below.

Except for cost reimbursable CLIN 0009, all of the CLINs under this solicitation are fixed priced. Therefore the contemplated contract is substantially fixed priced and will be evaluated as follows:

Price Analysis: Adequate competition is expected in response to this solicitation. Therefore certified cost or pricing data is not required in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). Price analysis shall be used when certified cost or pricing data is not required in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(2). As a result all, offeror proposed contract line item (CLIN) prices in response to this solicitation will be analyzed for price fairness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The analytical techniques and procedures used in the price analysis will be determined by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(1). In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g) proposed unit prices will also be evaluated for unbalanced pricing.

Table 8 - Total Evaluated Price Matrix

CLIN and Description:

HAPI

Quantities

Firm Fixed Unit Price

(Each)

Assigned Value

Adjusted Price (Equals Quantity x Unit Price x Assigned Value)

CLINs 0001 (ESAPI), 0003 (XSAPI), 0005

(ESBI), 0007 (XSBI)

FAT Articles (197 ESAPI or 256 XSAPI or 143 ESBI or 146 XSBI)

197 $ 1 100 % $197.00

CLINs 0002 (ESAPI), 0004 (XSAPI), 0006

(ESBI), 0008 (XSBI)

First 12 Month Ordering Period

PY1 HAPI QTY Range 1-3000 3,000 $ 1 5 % $150.00

PY1 HAPI QTY Range 3001-6000 6,000 $ 1 5 % $300.00

PY1 HAPI QTY Range 6001-9000 9,000 $ 1 5 % $450.00

PY1 HAPI QTY Range 9001-12000 12,000 $ 1 100 % $12,000.00

PY1 HAPI QTY Range 12001-24000 24,000 $ 1 4 % $960.00

PY1 HAPI QTY Range 24001-32500 32,500 $ 1 3 % $975.00

Second 12 Month Ordering Period

PY2 HAPI QTY Range 1-3000 3,000 $ 1 5 % $150.00

PY2 HAPI QTY Range 3001-6000 6,000 $ 1 5 % $300.00

PY2 HAPI QTY Range 6001-9000 9,000 $ 1 100 % $9,000.00

PY2 HAPI QTY Range 9001-12000 12,000 $ 1 5 % $600.00

PY2 HAPI QTY Range 12001-24000 24,000 $ 1 4 % $960.00

PY2 HAPI QTY Range 24001-32500 32,500 $ 1 3 % $975.00

Third 12 Month Ordering Period

PY3 HAPI QTY Range 1-3000 3,000 $ 1 5 % $150.00

PY3 HAPI QTY Range 3001-6000 6,000 $ 1 5 % $300.00

PY3 HAPI QTY Range 6001-9000 9,000 $ 1 100 % $9,000.00

PY3 HAPI QTY Range 9001-12000 12,000 $ 1 5…