SPECIAL NOTICE
10 -- Draft Section M of SCAR Program
- Notice Date
- 12/19/2003
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- Contracting Office
- Other Defense Agencies, U.S. Special Operations Command, Headquarters Procurement Division, 7701 Tampa Point Blvd, MacDill AFB, FL, 33621-5323
- ZIP Code
- 33621-5323
- Solicitation Number
- H9222-04-R-0001
- Archive Date
- 1/31/2004
- Point of Contact
- John Pfender, Contract Specialist, Phone 812-854-5198, Fax 812-854-5095, - Susan Griffin, Contracting Officer, Phone 813-828-7411, Fax 813-828-7504,
- E-Mail Address
-
pfender_j@crane.navy.mil, griffi1@socom.mil
- Description
- The United States Special Operations Command is issuing a solicitation for the procurement of SOF Combat Assault Rifles (SCAR). The program will use full and open competition to fulfill the joint USSOCOM SCAR requirement. The following is a DRAFT version of Section "M" (Evaluation Factors for Award). This is provided to Industry for information purposes. It is anticipated that the solicitation will issue in Jan 2004 with closing on 18 June 2004. DRAFT SECTION M SECTION "M" ? EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD The government may award multiple Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal in response to the solicitation provides the best value to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the major areas, listed in descending order of importance: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Technical and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Price. In evaluating proposals, the Government will make appropriate trade-offs when required and select the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government. Offerors are cautioned that an award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror. The Government may award a contract(s) on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror?s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. However, if considered necessary by the contracting officer, discussions will be conducted with only those offerors determined to have a reasonable chance for award. The Evaluation will be done in two parts: a Preliminary Evaluation and a Full Proposal Evaluation. The Preliminary Evaluation is a pass/fail evaluation. Proposals passing all of the criteria will move on to the Full Proposal evaluation. Those proposals not passing all the standards shall be eliminated from further consideration for award. 2.0 EVALUATION AREAS, FACTORS, SUB FACTORS AND WEIGHTINGS: The factors and sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance. Technical Area Technical Proposal Factor 1: User Evaluation Sub-factor 1: Operational Effectiveness Potential Sub-factor 2: Operational Suitability Potential Factor 2: Technical Approach Sub-factor 1: SCAR L Product Sample compliance with Specification Sub-factor 2: Evaluation of Technical Proposal Specification Matrix Sub-factor 3: SCAR-H Approach Factor 3: Management Proposal Sub-factor 1: Facilities/Production Capacity and Capability Sub-factor 2: Capital Investment Sub-factor 3: ISO 9000 Certifications or equivalent certifications Sub-factor 4: Supply Chain Management Sub-factor 5: Subcontracting Past Performance Area Price Area 3.0 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA: SCAR L proposal/product samples will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria. Minimum Product Sample Requirement Number Proposal Requirement Go/No-GoDT-1 Receipt of Notice of Intent to Submit a Proposal by the date/time required herein. Go/No-GoDT-2 Inspect vendor submission for one each SCAR L (CQC) conversion and three SCAR L (S) Rifles. Inspect SCAR L (S) Rifles for identical configuration and ancillary equipment consisting of sling, vertical forward handgrip, blank firing adapter, bipod, cleaning kit, operator?s manual, and ten magazines. Go/No-GoDT-3 The offeror shall provide 3 certificates of conformance for each sample and CQC conversion documenting conformance to (1) the requirement of PS/4081/C03/1337 Paragraph 3.2.3.12; (2) the requirements of that portion of the drop test of PS/4081/C03/1337 Paragraph 3.2.3.14 relating to not firing a chambered primed case when the weapon is dropped; and (3) the requirements of PS/4081/C03/1337 Paragraph 3.2.3.2 relating to bore obstruction. Go/No-GoDT-4 The SCAR L product sample shall be chambered to fire 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition and conform to headspace requirement of not less than 1.465 inches nor more than 1.471 inches. Go/No-GoDT-5 SCAR L product sample shall be capable of firing in both semi-automatic and full automatic modes. Go/No-GoDT-6 The SCAR L product sample shall have a stock that is collapsible or foldable. Go/No-GoDT-7 The SCAR L product sample shall weigh no more than 7.75 lbs unloaded without magazine. Weight excludes all ancillary equipment and any protective MIL-STD-1913 rail covers. Go/No-GoDT-8 The SCAR L product sample shall have a rigid MIL-STD-1913 rail at the 12:00 position running continuously from the rear sight to the front sight, which may be mounted to the upper receiver or integral to the weapon. The SCAR L product sample shall also have additional MIL-STD 1913 rails at 3:00, 6:00, and 9:00 in the fore-arm/hand guard area. Go/No-GoDT-9 The SCAR L product sample shall have a safety mechanism that prevents the weapon from firing when the trigger is depressed and the safety/selector is "on" safe. SCAR L product samples passing all Go/No-Go requirements listed above will proceed to demonstrate performance on Go/No-Go (DT 10-12) tests involving Operational Effectiveness and Suitability potential. Vendors will provide personnel to demonstrate their weapon to listed criteria of DT 10-12. The SCAR L (standard version) product sample will be chosen by the government from the 3 product samples submitted by the vendor and will be evaluated to the following DT criteria in sequential order. Vendors will have two hours to successfully meet all performance requirements. No single criteria may be tested more than two times to achieve a passing score. A product sample failing to meet any go/no-go criteria (within 2 hours, or two attempts) will result in the vendor?s submission being immediately disqualified and removed from further testing and consideration for award. Go/No-GoDT-10 Probability of hit semi-automatic fire (300m) ? A vendor representative shall score a minimum of 70% hits when firing 30 aimed shots at an E-silhouette in a prone position with bipod, at 300 meters in a time period of two minutes or less using the weapons? iron sights and MK262 ammunition. Go/No-GoDT-11 Probability of hit automatic fire (50m) ? A vendor representative shall score a minimum of 2 hits on 3 of 4 E-silhouettes when firing 5 round burst from an unsupported prone position (no ancillary equipment), 1 burst at each of the 4 E-silhouettes at a known distance of 50 meters using the weapons? iron sights and M855 ball ammunition. Representative shall engage all targets, with a magazine change for each, within a one-minute period. Go/No-GoDT-12 Barrel length conversion ? Vendor representative shall convert a SCAR L (S) to the SCAR L (CQC) in less than 20 minutes. The converted weapon shall properly conform to headspace requirement of not less than 1.465 inches nor more than 1.471 inches. 4.0 FULL PROPOSAL EVALUATION 4.1 Technical Area 4.1.1 Factor 1: User Evaluation 4.1.1.1 Sub-factor 1: Operational Effectiveness Potential: The product sample will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Product Sample and the proposed production hardware meets the SCAR L specification paragraph 3.2.4 4.1.1.2 Sub-factor 2: Operational Suitability Potential: The product sample will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Product Sample and the proposed production hardware meets the SCAR L specification paragraph 3.2.4. 4.1.2 Factor 2: Technical Approach 4.1.2.1 Sub-factor 1: SCAR L Product Sample: The Product Sample will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it meets the specification. 4.1.2.2 Sub-factor 2: Technical Proposal Specification Matrix: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the production hardware will successfully meet the specification and/or the offeror?s proposal with minimal risk. The evaluation will consider the risk (i.e. manufacturing/support of SCAR L) to the government inherent in the technical proposal including the proposed risk management plan. 4.1.2.3 Sub-factor 3: SCAR H Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to assess the offeror?s consideration and focus on the SCAR H design evolution relating to ergonomic and parts commonality to the SCAR L along with Open Architecture of the SCAR H relating to caliber modularity and the associated risks. The evaluation will consider the risk to the government inherent (i.e. manufacturing/support of the SCAR H) in the SCAR H approach proposal including the proposed risk management plan. 4.1.3 Factor 3: Management Approach 4.1.3.1 Sub-factor 1: Facilities/Production Capacity and Capability: The proposal will be evaluated to assess the vendor?s ability to meet the government?s proposed delivery schedule as delineated in the solicitation. 4.1.3.2 Sub-factor 2: Capital Investment: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror has the capital equipment necessary to successfully fulfill the government?s requirements without a break in production for new capital. 4.1.3.3 Sub-factor 3: ISO 9000 Certifications or equivalent: The provided certifications will be evaluated to assess the offeror?s quality management system to determine the extent to which the offeror can ensure that its product will satisfy the Government?s quality requirements while complying with applicable regulations or environmental objectives. 4.1.3.4 Sub-factor 4: Supply Chain Management: The proposal will be evaluated to ensure the offeror?s supply chain management, which includes the developing, planning, sourcing, manufacturing and delivering, will meet the proposed delivery schedule. 4.1.3.5 Sub-factor 5: Subcontracting 4.1.3.5.1 The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the corporate strategy continually and effectively locates and subcontracts with small and small disadvantaged businesses, and how it will be applied to the management strategy. 4.1.3.5.2 The proposal will be evaluated to determine the level of commitment of the team participants. 4.1.3.5.3 The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror?s plan for meeting their intended subcontracting goals can be executed. For large businesses responding to this solicitation, the intended small and small disadvantaged business goals will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it meets statutory requirements identified in the table below. Evaluation will include an assessment of the type of tasks to be subcontracted to determine the relationship and the allocation of work among the subcontractors, as well as, the correlation with and successful execution of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, if applicable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the prime has adequate monitoring/oversight to control cost, schedule and performance of the subcontractor(s). CATEGORY STATUTORY PERCENTAGES FY05 FY06 FY07 A. Total Small Business Concerns (including B through E) B. Small Disadvantaged Business C. Women-Owned Small Business D. HUB Zone Small Business E. Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business F. HBCU/MI Small Business 4.2 Past Performance Area 4.2.1 Performance risk considers those risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation requirements as indicated by the offeror's record of past/current performance on relevant contracts. The PRAG evaluation will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor?s performance of an offeror and all subcontractors/team members. Proposals shall be evaluated to determine if the contracts submitted for the prime and subcontractors/team members sources are current and relevant. If no relevant historical or current data exists then the procedures of FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) will apply. The Government will evaluate the Proposal, Questionnaire Responses and data from outside sources considering the following aspects: Cost/Schedule Planning & Control, Quality Assurance, and Cooperation. This includes the offeror's performance in cost, schedule, and the administrative aspects of performance; the offeror's history for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction;; and generally, the offeror's businesslike concern for the interests of its customers. 4.2.2 The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether offerors have achieved their Small Business Subcontracting Plan goals and monetary targets on relevant contracts. The evaluation will also take into account the offeror's actions taken to attempt to achieve those goals. 4.3 Price Area 4.3.1 Price will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness. A total evaluated price for the maximum quantities over the entire length of contract performance will be determined utilizing price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). Price reasonableness is a matter of the competitiveness of the Offeror's proposal, considering the price and evaluation criteria. Competitiveness is not determined by a simple comparison with the prices proposed by the other offerors, but rather, involves making trade-offs among offers with varying degrees of advantageousness. The total evaluated price integrated with other evaluation criteria could result in award to other than the offeror with the lowest evaluated price. 4.3.2 Although prices for technical data not-separately-priced is not required in Section B of the solicitation, DoD requires estimates of the prices of data in order to evaluate the cost to the Government of data items in terms of their management, product, or engineering value in accordance with DFARS 215.470. 4.3.3 In the event the Government requires other than cost and pricing data, it shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. 4.3.4 All proposals shall be evaluated for unbalanced pricing. The Government may remove proposals with unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1. 4.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). All CLINS proposed in Section B will be totaled and summarized for each year based on the known Government requirement for that period. The total quantity will equal the maximum quantity for each item that may be purchased. This is for evaluation purposes only; the Government is not obligated to purchase anything other then the stated minimum as set for in the solicitation. For example, CLIN 0002 has a stated quantity of 83, 988. The government intent is to buy this amount over the eight-year ordering period. The current Government estimated yearly quantities will be multiplied by the Offerors price for that year. All prices will be summed for a total CLIN price. This procedure will be followed for all CLINs, which will be summed to arrive at the total evaluated price (TEP). All offerors are responsible for monitoring the Federal Business Opportunities website at http://fedbizopps.gov/ for release of the upcoming solicitation and any notices. Any questions may be directed in writing, to the following: pfender_j@crane.navy.mil or via facsimile to the attention of Mr. John Pfender at (812) 854-5198.
- Record
- SN00493339-W 20031221/031219213010 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |