1.14.1-Draft_Combined Synopsis - Solicitation.pdf

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of the Acquisition Management (OAQ) Detention, Compliance & Removals (DCR) 500 12th St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20024

May 29, 2025

TO: Industry Partners

FROM: Genna Braden, Contracting Officer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Office of Acquisition Management (OAQ), Detention, Compliance & Removals (DCR)

SUBJECT: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation - Request for Quote (RFQ) 192125FHQIHSCDPR1.01

Dear Industry Partners:

The provision at 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, applies to this acquisition and this entire document represents the addenda to the provision. If there is any conflict between the terms in 52.212-1 and this document, the terms in this document shall govern. This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items/services prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6, and under the authority of FAR Part 13.5, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; quotations are being requested, and a written solicitation document will not be issued. This solicitation, No. 192125FHQIHSCDPR1.01, and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2025-03.

The ICE Office of Acquisition Management (OAQ) anticipates that this combined synopsis/solicitation will result in award of a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Purchase Order (PO). The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 339114 - Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing with a small business size standard of 750 employees. The Product Service Code (PSC) is 6520 - Dental Instruments, Equipment, and Supplies. This requirement is not a small business set-aside. The quoter must have an active System for Award Management (SAM) registration at the time of quote submission in order for the quote to be accepted. If a quoter does not have an active SAM registration at the time of quote submission, the quote will not be accepted or evaluated. Note, one or more of the items under this acquisition is subject to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement and Free Trade Agreements.

Attachment(s):

1. Attachment 1 – Statement of Work (SOW)

2. Attachment 2 – Terms and Conditions

3. Attachment 3 – Quoter Questions

1. DESCRIPTION

1.1. Description: DHS/ICE has a requirement for 2-D panoramic radiograph machines along with installation, uninstallation, removal, disposal, site training, etc. as described in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work

(SOW).

1.2. Place of Contract Performance: The place of performance/delivery location is:

See Statement of Work (SOW).

1.3. Period of Performance: The period of performance for this contract shall not exceed six months from the date of the award. All deliveries shall be Free on Board (FOB) destination.

2. SOLICITATION GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1. General Conditions. The ICE OAQ is releasing this RFQ in electronic format only. The government will not be obligated to pay any costs incurred by a quoter in preparation and submission of a quote in response to this solicitation. A quoter who includes data in their quote that it does not want to be disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the government except for evaluation purposes, shall mark the text accordingly. Quoters shall fully understand and accept these terms, as well as all other terms and conditions stated herein, before deciding whether to participate in this solicitation.

3. GENERAL INFORMATION

3.1. General Conditions. All communications related to this solicitation shall be provided electronically to all

POC(s) listed in the Government Points of Contact (POC) section via the email address(es) listed therein.

The “Subject” line of ALL correspondence shall at a minimum include “[Insert quoter name] RFQ for 192125FHQIHSCDPR1.01”. Electronic copies shall be formatted using Microsoft Office with file names that are consistent with the structure of the quote. Omission of any information from these requirements, along with all other content contained in this solicitation, may result in rejection of the quote.

3.2. Government Points of Contact (POCs). Unless otherwise indicated in this RFQ, all correspondence and submissions relating to this solicitation shall be directed to the Contracting Officer (CO) identified below:

Contracting Officer:

Genna Braden Email: Genna.Braden@ice.dhs.gov Phone: 682-218-7283

3.3. RFQ Questions. The cutoff date and time for questions relating to this RFQ is June 23, 2025, at 12:00

PM Eastern Time (ET). Quoters shall email questions utilizing Attachment 3 – Quoter Questions to the POC(s) listed in the Government Points of Contact (POC) section via the email address(es) listed in therein. Questions submitted after the cutoff date and time may be responded to at the discretion of the CO. Please be advised that the government reserves the right to publish those questions and answers to all prospective quoters. As such, quoter’s should refrain from including proprietary information in their questions. Please note, the government may not provide a response to every question received.

3.4. Submission Due Date. Quotes shall be emailed to all POC(s) listed in the Government Points of Contact

(POC) section via the email address(es) listed therein no later than June 30, 2025, at 12:00 PM ET. Any submissions received after the above stated due date will not be accepted and will not be evaluated or considered for the award.

mailto:Genna.Braden@ice.dhs.gov

4.0. Submission Instructions. Quoters shall follow all the below quote preparation instructions.

4.1. Quote Documents and Contents.

4.1.1. Format and Page Limitations. The government has not specified detailed formatting requirements for the quoter’s written submissions (such as minimum margins, font size, and so forth), but expects thoughtful and purposeful engagement and professionalism focused on meeting the government’s needs for the acquisition. Unnecessarily elaborate submissions in response to this notice are not desired and will not instill confidence in the government evaluators. Written submissions should contain enough detail to give the government confidence that the quoter understands the requirement and can successfully complete the work. Note, quote contents that exceed the stated page limitations will be removed from the quote by the CO prior to turning the quote over to the government evaluation team, and the excess pages will not be considered or evaluated. See below for applicable page limits.

4.1.2. Volumes and Organization. Quoters must submit their written response in five separate volumes:

Volume I: Quote Summary Volume II: Factor 1 – Product Offerings Volume III: Factor 2 – Corporate Experience Volume IV: Factor 3 – Technical Capability Volume V: Factor 4 – Price

Pricing data is prohibited in, and shall be omitted from, Volumes I, II, III, and IV. Any conditional assumptions taken with respect to the requirements and the solicitation shall be fully explained in Volume I of the quote. Any pricing assumptions shall be fully explained in Volume V of the quote.

The page limitations shown below do not include any “front matter” information such as a title page, table of contents, definitions, or acronyms. Any information submitted within the “front matter” will not be considered or evaluated.

The government intends to evaluate and award without discussions. Therefore, the initial submission should include the most favorable Product Offerings, Corporate Experience, Technical Capability, and Price that the quoter can submit to the government. However, the government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the CO to be necessary.

4.2. Volume I: Quote Summary. The Quote Summary shall include the following:

a. RFQ Number & Title

b. Name and address of prime/Joint Venture (JV)/lead quoter

Volume Volume Title RFQ Reference Page Limits

I Quote Summary 4.2 None

II Factor 1 – Product Offerings 4.3 Five (5) pages

III Factor 2 – Corporate Experience 4.4 Four (4) pages

IV Factor 3 – Technical Capability 4.5 Five (5) pages

V Factor 4 – Price 4.6 None

c. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) number

d. Name, title, contact information, and signature of authorized representative. The cover letter must be signed by a responsible officer or partner/principal of the quoter that is authorized to bind the organization contractually.

e. Shall indicate in writing that the quote is valid at least through 9/30/2025.

f. List of any subcontractors, JV, or teaming partners and relationship.

g. Acknowledgment of solicitation amendments.

h. All assumptions to the RFQ must be identified in Volume I with the exception of any pricing assumptions. Pricing assumptions shall be included in the quoter’s Volume V submission if applicable.

i. All contractor provision fill-ins as required by Attachment 2 – Terms and Conditions Specifically, but not limited to:

i. FAR 52.204-20(AUG 2020)

ii. FAR 52.204-24 (NOV 2021)

iii. FAR 52.204-26 (OCT 2020)

iv. FAR 52.209-2 (NOV 2015)

v. FAR 52.209-5 (AUG 2020)

vi. FAR 52.209-11 (FEB 2016)

vii. FAR 52.212-3 (MAY 2024)

viii. FAR 52.225-6 (FEB 2021)

ix. FAR 52.229-11 (JUN 2020)

4.3. Volume II: Factor 1 – Product Offerings. The quoter’s Product Offerings submission shall specifically address and include all the following:

• Extended specifications, manufacturer name, part numbers, etc. that readily illustrate the quoted dental panoramic machine meets all of the requirements outlined in Section 3.1 of the SOW.

The quote shall only include extended specifications, manufacturer name, part numbers, etc. for one dental panoramic machine, i.e. the submission shall not include multiple different types, brands, etc.

of dental panoramic machines. Quotes that include more than one dental panoramic machine will not be evaluated, the quoter will be removed from competition, and the quoter will not be considered for award.

• Additionally, the quote must include discussion and evidence which substantiates each of the following:

1. The quoted machine is floor mounted.

2. Includes all necessary accessories (cables, interfaces, positioning device kits, mounting parts, etc.)

3. All equipment is new and is not grey market or refurbished equipment.

4. The machine is capable of capturing images using a TWAIN/TWACKER interface and viewable with Medicor Imaging Picture Archiving and Communication System (MiPACS) software using a centralized storage platform.

5. The machine must be 100% compatible with MiPACs. The quote must provide explicit evidence and certification from MiPACS to support that the machine is 100% compatible with MiPACS.

6. The quoted equipment configuration software’s baseline code must not require MSXML4.dll to be installed. Specifically, when installed, the software must not require placement of MSXML4.dll in either of these two locations on local drive C:\Windows\Options\System32 or C:\Windows\Options\SysWow64. The quoter shall submit the software prerequisite document for all software that must be installed to the

ICE network in order for the product to function. The quote must provide explicit evidence and certification to support that the configuration’s baseline code does not require MSXML4.dll to be installed and does not require placement of MSXML4.dll in either of the local drive locations discussed above.

7. The machine ensures high image quality, short exposure time, hardware longevity, and technical support.

8. The quoted machines are the same brand and model.

9. The submission must demonstrate that the quoter is an authorized distributor/reseller of the quoted dental panoramic machines and shall provide explicit evidence and certification to support such.

4.4. Volume III: Factor 2 – Prior Experience. The quoter’s Prior Experience submission shall specifically address and include all the following:

• Up to three recent and relevant Prior Experience contract references which demonstrate the quoter has experience with the SOW requirements. The quoter shall provide a description of the prior experience effort and ways the prior experience effort is similar to the work described in the SOW. Additionally, the quoter shall discuss the number of facilities supported and how many machines were delivered/installed/uninstalled/removed, etc. for each contract reference. Note, quotes which include more than three contract references will not be evaluated, the quoter will be removed from the competition, and the quoter will not be considered for award.

o Recent is defined as work performed within the last five years from the date of issuance of this RFQ.

o Relevant is defined as similar in scope to the SOW requirements. In order for a contract reference submission to be considered similar in scope, it must demonstrate experience delivering, uninstalling, removing, and installing dental panoramic machines at government or correctional facilities.

• The quoter’s contract references must also demonstrate recent and relevant experience working on efforts similar in magnitude to the SOW requirements. Similar magnitude is defined as experience installing at least 5 dental panoramic machines at multiple different government or correctional facilities. This experience does not have to be demonstrated in one contract reference, but can be collectively demonstrated across all of the quoter’s prior experience contract references. Failure to demonstrate recent and relevant experience working on efforts similar in magnitude (i.e. experience installing at least 5 dental panoramic machines at multiple different government or correctional facilities) will be considered a Deficiency and will automatically result in a rating of Low Confidence for Factor 2.

• Each contract reference must state whether the experience is for the prime/Joint

Venture/Lead quoter or subcontractor.

• Prior experience contract references may be submitted for the quoter’s subcontractor.

However, at least one of the prior experience contract references must be for work performed by the prime/Joint Venture (JV)/lead quoter.

The quoter’s Prior Experience submission shall also include all of the below for each contract reference:

o The contract number.

o The contract type.

o Total value of the contract (inclusive of all options if applicable). If the project was performed as a subcontractor or at a TO level, provide the applicable dollar value of the work performed as opposed to a total contract/ceiling value.

o Number of machines installed under the effort.

o Number of government or correctional facilities supported under the effort.

o Whether the quoter was the prime or a subcontractor on the project.

o The contract’s period of performance.

o The government or commercial contracting activity’s address, telephone number and email.

o Description of scope, specific taskings, and brief explanation of how the contract demonstrates experience with the SOW requirements.

o If the experience is for a parent company, an affiliate, or another subcontractor/team member, with a different CAGE code, the quoter shall include information demonstrating how the resources of the parent company, affiliate, or subcontractor/team member resources will be utilized to affect the performance of the quote. As a reminder, at least one of the contract references submitted must be for work performed by the prime/JV/lead quoter, i.e. not a parent company, affiliate, subcontractor etc.

4.5. Volume IV: Factor 3 – Technical Capability. The quoter’s Technical Capability submission shall specifically address and include all the following:

4.5.1. Dental Panoramic Machine. The quoter shall describe any essential or unique characteristics of the quoted dental panoramic machine and the feasibility of the machine to perform in a detention environment. The quoter shall also discuss any available commercial warranty terms.

4.5.2. Technical Approach. The quoter shall discuss their ability and approach to accomplish each task outlined in section 3 of the SOW. The approach must specifically address how the quoter will handle installing multiple machines at multiple facilities. The discussion must present sufficient information to reflect a thorough understanding of the SOW requirements with a detailed plan and timeline for achieving those requirements.

4.6. Volume V: Factor 4 – Price. Quoters shall submit pricing utilizing the structure in the table below which outlines the total cost for all equipment, tasks, etc. outlined in the SOW and be inclusive of all costs associated with this effort (e.g. the machines, shipping, delivery, labor, etc.). The quoter shall not hide any cost cells and provide viewable formula access to all cells if applicable. Quoters are encouraged to offer the best discount available.

Pricing Structure Contract Line Item Number

(CLIN)

Description Quantity Unit Unit Price

Total Price

0001 Delivery of 14 Dental Panoramic Machines and Installation, Uninstallation, Removal, Disposal, Training, etc. along with all other SOW requirements

1 EA

5.0. BASIS FOR AWARD, EVALUTION FACTORS, AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

5.1. Basis for Award. The government anticipates awarding a single Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Purchase Order (PO) for the dental panoramic machines and support as described in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work (SOW) to the quoter whose quote offers the best value to the government in terms of following factors:

Factor 1: Product Offerings, Factor 2: Prior Experience, Factor 3: Technical Capability, and Factor 4: Price.

The government may award the PO to other than the lowest priced quoter, or other than the quoter with the highest non-price rating.

5.2. Evaluation Factors. Each quoter’s submission will be evaluated based on the following non-price factors and price.

• Factor 1: Product Offerings (non-price “go/no go” factor)

• Factor 2: Prior Experience (non-price tradeoff factor)

• Factor 3: Technical Capability (non-price tradeoff factor)

• Factor 4: Price (tradeoff factor)

5.3. Evaluation Factor Order of Importance. As noted in RFQ Section 5.4, Factor 1: Product Offerings will be evaluated first on a go/no-go (“Acceptable/Unacceptable”) basis. While Factor 1: Product Offerings will be considered in the overall best value award determination, it is not a trade-off factor. The trade-off evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance.

• Technical Capability (non-price trade-off factor)

• Prior Experience (non-price trade-off factor)

• Price (trade-off factor)

The non-price trade-off factors, Factor 1: Prior Experience and Factor 2: Technical Capability, are more important than Factor 4: Price. If the non-price factor evaluation of quotes determines there are no substantial differences between quotes, then price becomes more important, but not necessarily determinative, in making the award decision. If quotes are not technically equal, award may be made to other than the quoter with the lowest priced quote, if the government determines that a price premium is warranted due to technical merit. The government may also award to other than the highest technically rated quote, if the government determines that a price premium is not warranted.

5.4. Evaluation Process. The government will employ a two-step evaluation process. Factor 1: Product Offerings will be evaluated first on a go/no-go (“Acceptable/Unacceptable”) basis. Quoters whose submissions are rated Unacceptable for Factor 1: Product Offerings will be ineligible for award, will be eliminated from the competition, and their trade-off factor quotes (Prior Experience, Technical Capability, and Price) will not be evaluated. Quoters whose submissions are rated “Acceptable” for Factor 1: Product Offerings will have their Factor 2: Prior Experience, Factor 3: Technical Capability, and Factor 4: Price quotes evaluated. Evaluation results from both evaluation steps (i.e. evaluation results for all factors) will be considered when making the final award decision.

After completing the best-value trade-off, the government will rank the quotes in descending order. For example, quotes will be ranked from 1 to 4 (depending on the number of quotes). The quote ranked 1 represents the apparent awardee and the best value to the government with the other quotes following in descending order of preference for award. Note, any quoter which receives a rating of Low Confidence for any of the non-price factors will not be ranked and will not be considered in any initial or subsequent apparent awardee determination.

Once the quotes have been ranked and an apparent awardee identified, the government will engage directly with MiPACS representative(s) to confirm that the apparent awardee’s quoted dental panoramic machine is 100% compatible with MiPACS. If the MiPACS representative(s) confirms the machine is 100% compatible, the government will proceed with award to the apparent awardee. However, if the MiPACS representative(s) states the apparent awardee’s quoted dental panoramic machine is not 100% compatible with MiPACS, the CO will send a non-compatibility email to the apparent awardee and inform them of such.

The apparent awardee will have five (5) business days from the date and time the CO sends the non-compatibility email to resolve any compatibility issues with MiPACS and submit any compatibility re-determination by MiPACS to the government. Failure to submit a compatibility re-determination by MiPACS to the CO within the five (5) business days outlined above, or if the government is unable to confirm with MIPACS representative(s) that the company has made a compatibility re-determination, will result in the quoter being eliminated from competition and ineligible for award. The government will then determine the next apparent awardee, i.e. the next highest ranked quoter, and will repeat the above process until an apparent awardee is identified which quotes a dental panoramic machine that is 100% compatible with MiPACS. Note, if the apparent awardee’s quoted machine is not found to be compatible with MIPACS, the apparent awardee shall not quote or submit an alternate machine, and the government will not consider or evaluate any subsequent quote submission.

5.5. Step 1 – Evaluation Process for Factor 1: Product Offerings. Factor 1: Product Offerings will be evaluated first on a go/no-go (“Acceptable/Unacceptable”) basis. The quoter’s Factor 1: Product Offerings submission will be evaluated to determine whether the quoted dental panoramic machine meets all of the requirements outlined in section 3.1 of the SOW and demonstrates that the quoter is an authorized distributor/reseller of the quoted machines. The Factor 1: Product Offerings quote will be rated acceptable or unacceptable, based on the rating definitions in the table below.

Rating Definitions

Acceptable The quote meets ALL of the below requirements:

2. The quote includes all necessary accessories (cables, interfaces, positioning device kits, mounting parts, etc.)

3. All quoted equipment is new and is not grey market or refurbished equipment.

4. The quoted machine is capable of capturing images using a TWAIN/TWACKER interface and viewable with Medicor Imaging Picture Archiving and Communication System (MiPACS) software using a centralized storage platform.

5. The machine is 100% compatible with MiPACs and includes explicit evidence and certification from MiPACS to support such.

6. The quoted equipment configuration software’s baseline code does not require MSXML4.dll to be installed and does not require placement of MSXML4.dll in either of these two locations on local drive C:\Windows\Options\System32 or C:\Windows\Options\SysWow64.

7. The quoted machine ensures high image quality, short exposure time, hardware longevity, and technical support.

8. All quoted machines are the same brand and model.

9. The submission demonstrates that the quoter is an authorized distributor/reseller of the quoted dental panoramic machines.

Unacceptable The quote fails to meet one or more of the below requirements:

2. The quote includes all necessary accessories (cables, interfaces, positioning device kits, mounting parts, etc.)

3. All quoted equipment is new and is not grey market or refurbished equipment.

4. The quoted machine is capable of capturing images using a TWAIN/TWACKER interface and viewable with Medicor Imaging Picture Archiving and

Communication System (MiPACS) software using a centralized storage platform.

5. The machine is 100% compatible with MiPACs and includes explicit evidence and certification from MiPACS to support such.

6. The quoted equipment configuration software’s baseline code does not require

MSXML4.dll to be installed and does not require placement of MSXML4.dll in either of these two locations on local drive C:\Windows\Options\System32 or C:\Windows\Options\SysWow64.

7. The quoted machine ensures high image quality, short exposure time, hardware longevity, and technical support.

8. All quoted machines are the same brand and model.

9. The submission demonstrates that the quoter is an authorized distributor/reseller of the quoted dental panoramic machines.

5.6. Step 2 – Evaluation Process for Factor 2: Prior Experience. The government will evaluate and assess its level of confidence that the quoter will be successful in performing the requirements based on an analysis of the quoter’s Factor 2 - Prior Experience submission. The government will evaluate the Prior Experience submission and document its evaluation through Confidence Findings as defined in the table below.

Confidence Findings Definitions

Element that Increases Confidence An aspect/element in the quote that has an appreciable positive impact on the government’s confidence.

Element that Decreases Confidence An aspect/element in the quote that poses a risk of unsuccessful contract performance and has an appreciable negative impact on the government’s confidence.

Deficiency

A material failure of a quote to meet a government requirement or a combination of elements in a quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. A Deficiency finding will automatically result in a rating of Low Confidence for the submission.

Observation An aspect/element which the government wishes to highlight that does not have a positive or negative impact on the government’s evaluation.

A quoter’s submission to Factor 2 will be evaluated as outlined above and assigned a Confidence Rating as described in the table below.

Confidence Rating Definitions High Confidence Based on the quoter’s Prior Experience, the government has high confidence that the quoter will be successful in performing the contract requirements with little to no government intervention.

Some Confidence Based on the quoter’s Prior Experience, the government has some confidence that the quoter will be successful in performing the contract requirements with some government intervention.

Low Confidence Based on the quoter’s Prior Experience, the government has low confidence that the quoter will be successful in performing the contract requirements even with government intervention and/or has one or more Deficiency findings.

5.7. Step 2 – Evaluation Process for Factor 3: Technical Capability. The government will evaluate and assess its level of confidence that the quoter understands the SOW requirements, has sound approaches, and will be successful in performing the SOW requirements based on the quoter’s Factor 3 – Technical Capability submission. Note, submissions which simply offer to perform in accordance with the government's requirements, merely paraphrase the requirements document, or use simple statements of compliance or reiteration (e.g. “understood”, “will comply”, “has the capability to”, “well-known techniques will be used”, etc.) may not provide confidence to the government evaluators which may result in a rating of Low Confidence. The government will evaluate the technical capability submission and will document its evaluation through Confidence Findings as defined in the table below.

Confidence Findings Definitions

Element that Increases Confidence An aspect/element in the quote that has an appreciable positive impact on the government’s confidence.

Element that Decreases Confidence An aspect/element in the quote that poses a risk of unsuccessful contract performance and has an appreciable negative impact on the government’s confidence.

Deficiency

A material failure of a quote to meet a government requirement or a combination of elements in a quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. A Deficiency finding will automatically result in a rating of Low Confidence for the submission.

Observation An aspect/element which the government wishes to highlight that does not have a positive or negative impact on the government’s evaluation.

A quoter’s submissions to Factor 3 will be evaluated as outlined above and assigned a Confidence Rating as described in the table below.

Confidence Rating Definitions High Confidence The government has high confidence that the quoter understands the requirement, has a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract requirements with little to no government intervention.

Some Confidence The government has some confidence that the quoter understands the requirement, has a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract requirements with some government intervention.

Low Confidence The government has low confidence that the quoter understands the requirement, has a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract requirements even with government intervention, and/or has one (1) or more Deficiency findings.

5.8. Step 2 – Evaluation Process for Factor 4: Price. Price quotes will not be assigned a confidence rating but will be evaluated with respect to completeness and reasonableness based on the information submitted in the quoter’s price submission.

5.8.1. Completeness. The government’s price evaluation will also assess the completeness of the price quote, which involves verification that:

• The Price quote utilizes the required structure as prescribed in the RFQ Volume V: Factor 4 –

Price instructions section.

• The Price quote outlines the total cost for all equipment, deliverables, and services outlined in the SOW, i.e. inclusive of all costs associated with this effort.

• All figures are correctly calculated, and no formulas are hidden.

If the government is unable to verify that the quoter has completed all of the above items, the price quote may be considered incomplete, which may affect the government’s ability to determine whether the quoted price is reasonable.

5.8.2. Reasonableness. The government will evaluate the total quoted price for reasonableness. The government may utilize one or more of the following methods, or alternate methods, to evaluate price reasonableness:

• Comparison to other quotes received.

• Comparison and/or analysis based on Independent Government Cost Estimate.

• Comparison/analysis to historical prices.

• Comparison with competitive published price lists.