09 - Atch 7 TETRAS II Addendum to Section M 7 Apr 22.pdf

FA248722RA002

Attachment 7

ATTACHMENT 7

Addendum to Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

a. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 31 March 2016 and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

These regulations are available electronically at the Government FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will select the proposal(s) with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal(s) conform(s) to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal(s). While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. First, the Government will review all documents for compliance with Section L. When all requested documents are received and confirmed compliant, then the offeror’s proposal package will be submitted for technical and price evaluation.

c. Offerors shall orally present their technical proposals. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate information presented in oral presentations on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” An ‘Unacceptable” technical rating will result in an offeror being ineligible for award.

d. The Government pricing evaluation team will evaluate cost/price proposals for completeness, reasonableness, and realism.

M-1.1 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award without discussions. Offerors are advised to submit their best offer suitable for an award decision in their proposal. The Government may conduct clarifications, limited exchanges where offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposals. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

M-1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government anticipates making multiple awards, potentially 40+ awards of $1,000 to attend the Post Award conference. However, Government reserves the right to award multiple contracts, or to award no contracts. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will consider the Government’s expected volume of work, available funding, and adequate completion. NAICS Code 336419 is used as a basis for size determination.

M-1.3 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements in addition to those identified as factors or sub factors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offer being ineligible for award. Offerors shall clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions and shall provide complete supporting rationale. Exceptions to solicitation terms and conditions may result in an offer being determined unawardable.

M-2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The following evaluation factors and sub factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability.

Factor I: Technical - SOW Capabilities Sub factor A: SOW Capabilities Project/Program Management Sub factor A: SOW Capabilities Area 1 – Design/Redesign Sub factor A: SOW Capabilities Area 2 – Hardware Sub factor A: SOW Capabilities Area 3 – Software Sub factor A: SOW Capabilities Area 4 - Testing

Factor II: Cost/Price

M-3.0 FACTOR I: TECHNICAL – SOW CAPABILITIES

a. The Government will evaluate Offerors’ oral presentation as their technical proposal. Oral presentations are limited to the requirements in Table L-1.3 in Section L. For purposes of evaluating oral proposal presentations, any and all information not presented within the time limit and contained solely within the slides presented during the oral presentation will be excluded from the evaluation. Any slides contained in the offeror’s slide deck that are not presented during its oral presentation, due to time constraints or other factors, will NOT be considered as part of the offeror’s oral presentation.

b. The Government will evaluate the technical proposal based on a pass/fail basis and will assign ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as described below. To be eligible for an award, the technical proposal must be rated “Acceptable” in all required criteria outlined below. Only those proposals determined technically “Acceptable” in the required criteria will be considered for award.

Offerors are reminded that the Government intends to award without discussions.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M-3.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL - SOW CAPABILITIES

a. The offeror’s oral proposal will be evaluated against the offeror’s Technical capability to meet the Statement of Work (SOW) requirements defined in paragraphs 1.3.1 through 1.3.6.6.4 IAW Section L-3.0. and the criteria below. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach to determine the offeror’s capability to directly perform Project/Program Management.

ALL offerors MUST propose to and demonstrate technical proficiency in Project/Program Management. In addition, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach to determine the offeror’s capability to perform two of the four remaining technical areas:

Design/Redesign, Hardware, Software, and Testing. Offerors MUST propose to and demonstrate technical proficiency in Project/Program Management AND two of the four technical areas (Design/Redesign, Hardware, Software, and Testing) to be considered for award. Note:

Technical Acceptability in two of the four technical areas does not preclude the offeror from delivery order competition in all technical areas after award. For the purposes of award of the basic IDIQ, offerors need only meet the technical acceptability criteria of this solicitation.

M-3.1.1 Sub factor A. SOW Capabilities - Project/Program Management

To be considered acceptable for this Criteria, the Offeror’s proposal presents a sound approach for meeting the criteria for all critical items (red bold) and at least 4 non-critical items.

CRITERIA SUB-

SET

CRITERIA SUBSET ELEMENTS

Demonstrate processes for accomplishing project/program management

1. Adequately demonstrate the following management activities /capabilities:

A. Planning;

i. Resource allocation and loading

i. Cost estimating and budgeting;

ii. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) development

iii. Cost, schedule and performance tradeoffs

B. Tracking;

i. Cost management

ii. Earned Value Management System (EVMS)

iii. Schedule management and on time deliveries

iv. Status reporting

C. Technical Management;

i. Design trade Offs

ii. Risk Management for individual projects

iii. Design milestone reviews

iv. Manage one or more special handling items (examples may include Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT), Explosives, Scientific and Technical Information (STINFO), Communications Security (COMSEC), Classified, etc…).

D. Program Management

i. Contracts and Subcontracts Management;

ii. Quality Management;

iii. Demonstrate delivery orders management and oversight for multiple concurrent DOs.

M- 3.1.2 Sub factor A. SOW Capabilities Area 1 - Design/Redesign

Offerors only need to meet the acceptability criteria in Area 1a OR Area 1b, NOT both, to meet the acceptability criteria for Sub factor A SOW Capabilities Area 1 - Design/Redesign

To be considered acceptable for this Criteria, the Offeror’s proposal presents a sound approach for meeting the criteria for all critical items (red bold) in Area 1a AND at least 8 non-critical items in Area 1a;

CRITERIA SUB-SET CRITERIA SUBSET ELEMENTS

Area 1a The offeror demonstrates the ability to develop state of the art designs with accepted engineering practices and processes and The offeror demonstrates the ability to develop state of the art software designs that meets C5ISR, virtual, or electronic combat test capabilities

1. Adequately demonstrate standards and relevant guidance, documents, products and system engineering plans

2. Adequately demonstrate problem definition and analysis planning addressing:

A. Candidate solution set analysis from trade space and capabilities studies;

B. Effectiveness and suitability modeling;

C. Deficiency resolution;

D. Traceability of requirements;

E. Configuration management

3. Adequately demonstrate data validation/hypothesis testing processes addressing:

A. Model population and construction;

B. Analysis, capability decomposition, requirements exploration and synthesis;

C. Associated M & S tool set

4. Adequately demonstrate design reviews verifying functional allocation and reporting progress metrics

5. Adequately demonstrate initial designs to support C5ISR, virtual, or electronic combat test capabilities

6. Adequately demonstrate redesigns and modifications to support C5ISR, virtual, or electronic combat test capabilities

7. Adequately demonstrate installed C5ISR systems training A. User/programming/COTS manuals B. Hands on training/classroom

8. Adequately demonstrate C5ISR technical data and drawing packages A. Version descriptions B. Documentation of source code C. “As-built” design descriptions D. Firmware fabrication

M- 3.1.2 Sub factor A. SOW Capabilities Area 1 - Design/Redesign

(continued)

OR

The Offeror’s proposal presents a sound approach for meeting the criteria for all critical items (red bold) in Area 1b AND at least 8 non critical items in Area 1b.

CRITERIA SUB-SET CRITERIA SUBSET ELEMENTS

Area 1b The offeror demonstrates the ability to develop state of the art designs with accepted engineering practices and processes and The offeror demonstrates the ability to develop state of the art hardware designs that meet test capabilities for weapons, spectrum or

DoD test facilities

1. Adequately demonstrate standards and relevant guidance, documents, products and system engineering plans

2. Adequately demonstrate problem definition and analysis planning addressing:

F. Candidate solution set analysis from trade space and capabilities studies;

G. Effectiveness and suitability modeling;

H. Deficiency resolution;

I. Traceability of requirements;

J. Configuration management

3. Adequately demonstrate data validation/hypothesis testing processes addressing:

D. Model population and construction;

E. Analysis, capability decomposition, requirements exploration and synthesis;

F. Associated M & S tool set

4. Adequately demonstrate design reviews verifying functional allocation and reporting progress metrics

5. Adequately demonstrate initial designs to support weapon, spectrum or DOD test facility test capabilities

6. Adequately demonstrate redesigns and modifications to support weapon, spectrum or DOD test facility test capabilities

7. Adequately demonstrate installed weapon test systems training A. Installation/operational user’s manuals B. Hands on training/classroom

8. Adequately demonstrate weapon test technical data and drawing packages A. Schematics, Mechanical drawings, pin outs B. Parts lists/Bill of Materials (BOMs) C. Interface Control Documents (ICDs)

M-3.1.3 Sub factor A. SOW Capabilities Area 2 - Hardware meeting the criteria for all critical items (red bold) in Area 2 AND at least 8 non-critical items from Area 2.

CRITERIA SUBSET ELEMENTS

Area 2 Demonstrate the ability to develop, fabricate, integrate, and manufacture C5ISR, Spectrum and Munitions Test Systems for the successful delivery of hardware and Demonstrate working knowledge and experience of a broad range of test capabilities for Weapon/

Munitions, Electronic Combat and Spectrum Systems

1. Demonstrate the following disciplines:

A. Prototyping or engineering unit fabrication/manufacturing B. System compatibility and interoperability;

C. Analysis and test of structures, materials and mechanical systems associated with excessive heat, mechanical loads, resonant frequencies, and/or environmental impacts

D. Integration of all interfaces (electrical/electronic and mechanical hardware, firmware, and software) between the system and its operating environment;

E. Manufacture planning and tracking;

F. Production and quality controls and assessments;

G. Pre-delivery testing

2. Demonstrate fabricating complex hardware systems for test capabilities in at least one of the following: A) Large scale, suitable for a/c or ground based assets, (ex range radar); B) Small scale, suitable for weapons, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), etc., (ex Data Link); C) Miniature scale, suitable for man-portable weapons, etc., (ex transmitter)

3. Demonstrate hardware test capabilities in the following requirements:

A. Electromagnetic (EM) spectrum applications (in Radio

Frequency (RF), Microwave and Millimeter Wave (MMW), Microwave, Electro-Optical (EO), laser, Ultraviolet (UV))

B. RF, EO, and multispectral simulators, projectors and measurement/calibration systems

C. Flight termination, weapons safety footprint D. Guidance and control systems E. Directed Energy F. Seekers, sensors, signature measurement G. User interfaces (1553/1760) H. Warhead and munitions effectiveness I. Telemetry systems, L-Band, S-Band and/or C-band devices J. Bandwidth efficient RF designs K. Test Measurement & Diagnostics Equipment (TMDE) L. Radio, repeater, and transponder technologies M. Time Space Position Information (TSPI) N. Hardware-in-the-Loop

M-3.1.4 Sub factor A. SOW Capabilities Area 3 - Software meeting the criteria for all critical items (red bold) in Area 3 AND addressed at least 6 non-critical items in Area 3.

CRITERIA

SUB-SET

CRITERIA SUBSET ELEMENTS

Area 3 Demonstrate

Software Development and

Integration processes that evidence accomplishment for C5ISR, Spectrum, Electronic

Combat, Threat Systems, or

Munitions Test Systems and Demonstrate working knowledge and experience of a broad range of test capabilities for C5ISR, Spectrum, Electronic

Combat, Threat Systems, or

Munitions Test Systems

1. Adequately demonstrate the following disciplines:

A. Use of Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE)/Computer Aided

Design (CAD)/Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) tools and methods or similar;

B. Identification and management of Hardware Configuration Items (HWCI) and

Computer Software Configuration Items (CSCI);

C. Software development efforts including planning, estimating, compatibility and interoperability D. Test and Training Enabling Architecture (TENA) or other open system architectures;

E. Support of Government accreditation processes to include computer/communications security, countermeasures, and vulnerability in accordance with DoDI 8510.01 Risk Management Framework (RMF), or similar

2. Adequately demonstrate the following Software (S/W) efforts:

A. Embedded system software and firmware designs;

B. Data coding, collection, storage:

C. Data manipulation, filtering and feature extraction:

D. Data processing, display, formatting, conversion and archiving;

E. Scene generation for hardware-in-the-loop (HITL) seeker simulations, command and control, or similar;

F. Modifying software used to integrate, test and evaluate C5ISR systems to support functions such as scenario test scripting and simulated data streams;

G. Advanced communication protocol generation and networks;

H. Coding/developing digital system models, test bed models, or test environment models

3. Adequately demonstrate the following requirements:

A. Command and Control concept of operations and system functionality B. Communications and data transmission systems C. Computer communications/ networking, including distributed networks (Local area network (LAN)/wide area network (WAN) D. Data transport, archiving, mining, recording, instrumentation, etc.

E. Countermeasures/counter-countermeasures. This includes electromagnetic, obscurants, decoys/deception, and signature alteration F. Threat systems to include Surface to Air Missiles (SAM), Air to Air Missiles (AAM), Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA), jamming systems, early warning/acquisition systems, and guidance and intercept systems

G. EM spectrum applications (in RF, MMW, Microwave, EO, laser, UV) H. Flight termination, weapons safety footprint I. Guidance and control systems J. Directed Energy/ Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) effects K. Seekers, sensors L. Bandwidth efficient RF designs M. Fiber-optic networks N. Information warfare, surveillance, reconnaissance and intelligence systems O. Modeling and simulation or test environment simulators P. Test Measurement & Diagnostics Equipment (TMDE) Q. Spectrum monitoring and management systems R. Cyber vulnerabilities and advanced cyber security evaluation techniques

S. Cyber attack vectors in test environments

M-3.1.5 Sub factor A. SOW Capabilities Area 4 - Testing meeting the criteria for all critical items (red bold) in Area 4 AND addressed at least 3 non-critical items from each of Area 4, 4a, and 4b.

CRITERIA SUBSET ELEMENTS

Area 4 Demonstrate working knowledge and experience of a broad range of DoD and commercial test processes

1. Adequately demonstrate the following requirements :

A. Engineering T&E practices, including test planning, developmental and operational testing concepts for hardware or software B. International Range Instrumentation Group (IRIG) Standards as they apply to standard range instrumentation systems (Timing, Communications, Telemetry, Photo optics, etc.)

C. Standards compliance (Range Commanders Council, IEEE, etc…) D. Aircraft compatibility (aircraft/weapon)—SEEKEAGLE E. Telemetry (encoders, decom, S/W support tools) F. Test data capture - software preparation, data validation, quick look reporting G. Test data analysis - post mission reduction, validation, and analysis recommendations H. Test performance (such as Inspection, Functional verifications, Acceptance, Environmental, Qualification, and Flight test, etc…) I. Time-Space-Position Information (TSPI) J. GPS receiving, processing, and translation K. Antennas, receivers, transmitters L. Radar cross-section M. Acoustics N. Photo-optics O. Video P. Data, documentation, and training Q. Frequency control and analysis R. Target signature measurement S. Test Measurement & Diagnostics Equipment (TMDE)

Area 4a Demonstrate Test and demonstration activities that evidence processes for accomplishment

1. Adequately demonstrate the following test activities:

A. Test planning, preparation and implementation;

B. System performance validations and verifications for high dynamic environments in a lab environment;

C. Conduct and document Acceptance Test Procedures (ATP), Factory Acceptance

Testing (FAT) or Site Acceptance Testing (SAT);

D. Conduct and document Electromagnetic Interference (EMI)/Electromagnetic

Capability (EMC) and Electrostatic Discharge (ESD);

E. Conduct and document Hazard of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance

(HERO) or Hazard of Electronic Radiation to Personnel (HERP);

F. Conduct and document shock, pyro shock or thermal testing;

G. Conduct and document vibration buffet/nonbuffet/free flight;

H. Conduct failure and hazards analysis;

I. Analyze and document test results;

J. Determine operational effectiveness, suitability, survivability, and safety for intended uses;

K. Conduct field test or demonstration;

L. Provide operation and maintenance support during testing;

M-3.1.5 Sub factor A SOW Capabilities Testing (Continued)

To be considered acceptable for this Criteria, the Offeror’s proposal addressed all critical items (red bold) in Area 4 AND addressed at least 3 non-critical items from each of Area 4, 4a, and 4b.

M-4.0 FACTOR II – COST/PRICE

Offeror’s cost/price proposals will be evaluated for Completeness, Reasonableness, and Cost Realism. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total evaluated price for the first three years. The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will not be rated or scored. To facilitate the evaluation of proposal information of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), U.S. Department of Labor, Global Insight Indices and any other resource available to the Government. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the Offeror.

The Government intends to conduct cost/price evaluations on an incremental, first-in-first-out basis as proposals are received. Contractors are encouraged to submit proposals early. The Government will not make an award to any contractor prior to the solicitation closing date and time. All awardees will have the same effective date of award in block 3 of their DD Form 1155, regardless of the date of proposal submission. Notice of award will be no later than five business days prior to the effective date via e-mail to the Contractor’s obligation POC.

M-4.1 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will not be rated or scored but will be evaluated for

1. Adequately demonstrate the following requirements:

Electronic security Control and surveillance systems Free space and indoor facility signal analysis to include microwave signals, fiber optics, and data bus traffic Preflight Integration of Munitions & Electronic Systems (PRIMES) High Energy lasers (HEL) High Powered Microwave (HPM) Range Slaving Systems (RSS) Simulated Tactical Environment for Munitions (STEM) Multi-Spectral Test and Training Environment (MSTTE) Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) Electro-Optical Evaluation Complex (EOEC) Climatic Lab Test Measurement Facilities Digital Models System Integration Lab Hardware In the Loop/Installed System Test Facility Open Air Ranges used in live, virtual, and/or constructive domains

Area 4b Demonstrate working knowledge and experience of the Eglin Range

Complex or equivalent DoD facilities completeness, reasonableness, cost realism (Cost elements only), and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

A Most Probable Cost (MPC) adjustment may be applied by the Government.

M-4.1.1 COMPLETENESS.

The Offeror’s price proposal will be reviewed for completeness to determine the extent to which Attachment 3, Cost/Price Sheet was used to submit the cost/price proposal and to which all cost/price elements have been addressed in compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

M-4.1.2 REASONABLENESS

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR

15.404. The Government will evaluate the TEP for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The TEP calculation is further addressed in paragraph 4.5 below. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (1) and 15.404-1(b) (2) (i), adequate price competition normally establishes a price fair and reasonable. However, the Government reserves the right to assess reasonableness based on any of the cost or price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404.

Additionally, although adequate price competition is expected, if only one offer is received in response to this solicitation the responding Offeror will be required to provide certified cost or pricing data in accordance with Table 15-2, at FAR 15.408 and DFARs Clause 252.215-7009.

M-4.1.3 COST REALISM

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Cost elements for realism using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1. Cost realism analysis will consist of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic and reflect a clear understanding of the requirements in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(1). This evaluation will include the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements and reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Cost realism analysis will be accomplished on direct labor only. A proposal may be rejected if the CO determines that an unrealistic price poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M-4.2 MOST PROBABLE COST (MPC)

The MPC is based upon the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror's proposal. The MPC is determined by adjusting the Offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the result of the realism analysis. The Offeror’s proposed estimated costs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes. Unrealistically low, or high, proposed costs, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or has made an unrealistic proposal. If the Government determines the justification is inadequate the Government will adjust the direct labor rate to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) correlated to that skill level.

Although an MPC may be calculated and used for evaluation purposes only, the awarded Offeror’s proposed prices will be placed on contract.

M-4.3 ROUNDING

All calculated monetary amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest penny. All rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny. Failure to round may result in miscalculation; the Government reserves the right to round the offeror’s rates to the hundredth decimal point.

M-4.4 BURDENED LABOR RATES (BLRs)

Offeror’s Burdened Labor Rate (BLR) build-up (excluding profit or fee) should be calculated for each labor category and skill level identified in Attachment 4 as follows: Direct Labor Rate plus all applied rate amounts. All BLRs ceiling rates will be established on the basic contract for the first three years. Also, all profit and fee ceiling rates will be established for five years.

Offerors shall escalate all proposed rates to reflect an anticipated start of CY 2022.

M-4.5 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP)

The TEP will be calculated using Attachment 3, Cost/Price Sheet and in accordance with Section L, Attachment 4. The table below depicts the TEP Calculation

Total Labor Cost (TLC) The sum of all Labor Costs on all labor categories and skill levels.

FFP Calculation 1 Adjusted Labor Cost

(ALC)

Divide Total Labor Cost by 2 (50% of TLC)

2 Material (MAT) Government-established amount of $15,000,000.00 3 Material Overhead

(MAT OH)

Apply proposed Material Overhead rate to Government established Material amount, if not applicable enter zero.

4 Material G&A Apply proposed Material G&A rate, if not applicable enter zero.

5 Material Total Cost Subtotal MAT+ MAT OH + MAT G&A costs 6 Subtotal Subtotal ALC + Material Total Cost 7 Facility Capital Cost of

Money (FCCOM) Apply proposed FCCOM rate to the subtotal at item 6, if not applicable, enter zero.

8 Profit total Apply proposed Profit Rate to the ALC (Item 1)

9 Total FFP Price Total Subtotal at item 6, item 7, and item 8.

CPFF Calculation 1 Adjusted Labor Cost

(ALC)

Divide Total Labor Cost by 2 (50% of TLC) after MPC has been applied

2 Material (MAT) Government-established amount of $15,000,000.00

3 Material Overhead

(MAT OH)

Apply proposed Material Overhead rate to Government established Material (MAT) amount of $15,000,000.00, if not applicable enter zero.

4 Material G&A Apply proposed Material G&A rate, if not applicable enter zero.

5 Material Total Cost Subtotal MAT+ MAT OH + MAT G&A costs 6 Subtotal Subtotal ALC + Material Total Cost 7 Facility Capital Cost of

Money (FCCOM) Apply proposed FCCOM rate to the subtotal at item 6, if not applicable, enter zero.

8 Fee total Apply proposed Fee Rate to the ALC (Item 1)

9 Total CPFF Cost Total Subtotal at item 6, item 7, and item 8.

Total Annual Price Total sum from Item 9 on the FFP Calculation and Item 9 on the CPFF

The calculations will be repeated for years 2, and 3.

1 Total Annual Price Total Annual Price for years 1, 2, and 3.

2 Initial Delivery Order Government-established amount of $1,000.

3 Total Evaluated Price

(TEP)

Add Total Annual Price for the first three years and the Government-established amount for the initial Delivery Order.

M-5.0 INITIAL DELIVERY ORDER (DO) SUBMISSION

The Government intends to award an initial DO of $1,000 for attendance of the post-award conference that meets the minimum order amount of the IDIQ. The purpose of the post award conference is to establish the contractual relationship and educate new Primes on the TETRAS II goals and processes. Awardees shall be responsible for attendance, providing inputs to meeting minutes, and completing action items assigned.