J_Attachment 9_Section M_1.docx

RFP ATTACHMENT XX – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION J - ATTACHMENT 9

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Source Selection (SS)

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

(a) This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one ID/IQ contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall management approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

(b) To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business Subcontracting, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

(c) The Government intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract to an Offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence they will best meet the requirements. The award of the IDIQ will be followed by task order awards to include operations and maintenance (O&M) support. The Government reserves the right not to award any contracts at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.2 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable”. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.3 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach. The Government may also reject an offer where the past performance record results in an assessment of “No Confidence” for Factor 2, as described in section 2.3 below.

1.4 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition based on the evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 – Technical Solution, Factor 2 – Management, Factor 3 – Past Performance or Factor 4 – Price, or a combination of the four factors.

The competitive range will be comprised of all the most highly rated proposals and those offerors whose proposals have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. The competitive range determination is a qualitative judgment based on the factual content contained in proposals. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.5 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative offerors submit their best terms initially. Any exceptions or deviations by the offeror to the terms and conditions stated in this solicitation for inclusion in the resulting contract may make the offer unacceptable for award without discussions. If an offeror proposes exceptions to the terms and conditions of these requirements, the Government may make an award, without discussions, to another Offeror that did not take exception to the terms and conditions, if such offeror is determined to be the best overall value for this effort.

However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Discussion Topics / Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the Source Selection decision. If a request for FPR is issued, offeror responses to Discussion Topics / ENs must be incorporated in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include Discussion Topics / EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical/management rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award. Offeror responses to Discussion Topics / ENs for Past Performance are not required to be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance Discussion Topics / ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.6 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, Statement of Objectives (SOO) and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. In the case a discrepancy exists between Section L- Instructions to Offerors (Addendum to 52.212-1) and Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award (Addendum to FAR 52.212-2), the evaluation criteria in Section M will take precedence.

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors Used to Evaluate Each Proposal A detailed and complete analysis of each Offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Solution Subfactor 1: MRMSS Operations and Maintenance Support, New Development, Enhancements, and Upgrades Subfactor 2: Hosting & Continuity of Operations Support Subfactor 3: Transition Plan Factor 2: Management Subfactor 1: Project Management Subfactor 2: Quality Management/Key Personnel Subfactor 3: Small Business Subcontracting Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Price

2.1.1 Relative Importance

(a) The relative importance is as follows: The three non-price factors: Factor 1 – Technical Solution; Factor 2 – Management and Factor 3 – Past Performance are listed in descending order of importance. When combined, the three non-price factors are considered significantly more important than Factor 4 – Price. However, Factor 4 – Price is an important consideration in the best value award decision.

(b) Within Factor 1 – Technical Solution, Subfactor 1, Subfactor 2 and Subfactor 3 are of equal importance.

(c) Within Factor 2 – Management, Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2 are of equal importance. Both Subfactors 1 and 2 are more important than Subfactor 3, Small Business Subcontracting/Participation. The Offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Participation proposal to be considered in the tradeoff decision.

2.1.2 Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by Volume):

2.2 Factor 1 – Technical Solution (Volume I)

Each Offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and SOO, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal must address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the overall technical solution ratings. The Technical ratings are defined in paragraph 2.2.3.1.

2.2.1 Subfactor 1: MRMSS Operations and Maintenance Support, New Development, Enhancements, and Upgrades The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed MRMSS Operations and Maintenance Support approach. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all the following essential components, with little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the objectives stated in the SOO (Section C) and PWS (Section J, Attachment 1) and planned execution of the support tasks. This refers to the manner in which the Offeror demonstrates the technical and organizational considerations that must be addressed to plan, manage, control, and provide the technical and advisory services and deliverables for the tasks outlined in the SOO.

b. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of logistics, schedule, and any other miscellaneous issues of which the Government should be aware including evidence of specific methods and techniques for completing tasks to include such items as quality, timeliness, customer-service, and risk mitigation.

c. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of New Development, Upgrades and Enhancements requirements as stated in the SOO and planned execution of the support tasks. This refers to the manner in which the Offeror demonstrates the technical and organizational considerations that must be addressed to plan, manage, control, and provide New Development, Upgrades and Enhancement deliverables for the tasks outlined in the SOO.

2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Hosting & Continuity of Operations Support The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Hosting approach. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all the following essential components, with little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of hosting in a secure FedRAMP approved facility, ability to provide both cloud services and government furnished equipment (GFE), and provide for continuity of operations of MRMSS and planned execution of support tasks outlined in the PWS.

b. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of providing a FedRAMP approved facility with the appropriate levels of management and security and planned execution of support tasks outlined in the PWS.

c. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of fulfilling requirements set forth in Sections 6 and 14 of the PWS, “Emergency Preparedness” and “Continuity of Operations (COO) Plan” respectively.

2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Transition Plan

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Transition Plan approach. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all the following essential components, with little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of a comprehensive Transition Plan by presenting a clear and achievable plan that addresses the full range of contract transition activities, while meeting the objectives of the MRMSS O&M contract, minimizing any disruption of service to MRMSS upon contract award, and completion of the transition period.

b. The proposal must effectively describe how the Offeror will successfully transition from existing contract (and vendor) to the new contract within 180 days or less.

c. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of logistics, schedule, and any other miscellaneous issues of which the Government should be aware as well as the feasibility to effectively transition from the incumbent to the new staff ensuring that ongoing efforts are not delayed as demonstrated through a sufficient, appropriate, and detailed Transition Plan.

2.2.3.1 Subfactor 1, Subfactor 2 and Subfactor 3 Ratings

Combined Technical Solution and Risk Rating. Factor 1 -- Subfactor 1, Subfactor 2, Subfactor 3

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

2.3 Factor 2 – Management (Volume II)

Each Offeror’s written management proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and SOO, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The management proposal must address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. The management evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the overall technical solution ratings. The Management ratings are defined in paragraph 2.3.2.1 below.

2.3.1 Subfactor 1: Project Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Project Management approach. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all the following essential components, with little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s approach to provide program/project management and perform MRMSS requirements, as outlined in the solicitation, specifically SOO Section 6.4, to ensure tasks are performed efficiently, accurately, on-time, and in compliance with requirements and planned execution of support tasks.

b. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s approach to managing proposed staff size, organizational structure and man-hour allocations for achieving successful and timely completion of SOO tasks.

c. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s approach to implement processes and program reporting tools that enhance confidence, credibility, and trust, as well as provide visibility into project status and the accurate, timely, and transparent reporting of information on project status and performance measures and metrics outlined in the PWS.

d. The proposal must demonstrate a sound organizational and management structure which ensures the PWS requirements will be met. If teaming and/or sub-contracting, the approach must clearly describe how each team member will perform their respective areas associated with the MRMSS system scope in PWS Section 2. The proposal must effectively describe and demonstrate how the Offeror will coordinate all contract activities associated with the MRMSS system amongst any associated sub-contractor or teaming partners.

2.3.2 Subfactor 2: Quality Management/Key Personnel

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Quality Management/Key Personnel approach.

a. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s proposed approach to quality assurance and control to determine the degree to which the proposal demonstrates an ability to meet or exceed the performance requirements and standards set forth in the solicitation.

b. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s proposed Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) ensures the requirements of the task order are provided as specified, as set forth in the solicitation.

c. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel evaluation to determine the degree to which their qualifications meet or exceed the Government’s needs and will potentially lead to successful completion of all requirements within the solicitation. Resumes may be used to support qualifications and experience.

d. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the currency, quality and experience of Key Personnel with regards to their qualifications, expertise and track record of success in providing support identical, or similar to the services required for MRMSS. Resumes may be used to support qualifications and experience.

e. The proposal must effectively demonstrate the Offeror’s proposed approach to handling Key Personnel substitutions.

2.3.2.1 Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2 Ratings

Combined Management and Risk Rating. Factor 2 -- Subfactor 1, Subfactor 2

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

2.3.3 Subfactor 3: Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Commitment Document All offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of proposed commitment to use U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein. Small business offerors will receive the maximum credit (i.e. Acceptable) for this evaluation subfactor and do not need to submit any documentation supporting this evaluation subfactor. The Government will evaluate the following to determine if the offeror meets or does not meet the requirement:

a. Small Business Subcontracting Plan that adequately responds to each of the required elements of FAR clause 52.219-9(d). Proposed percentages of total subcontracted dollars to be performed by small business must meet the established DOI goals.

b. Small Business Commitment Document that adequately responds to the items listed in Section L, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 4.2.5 (2) (a – g).

2.3.3.1 Subfactor 3 Ratings:

The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the Offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating (either Acceptable or Unacceptable) will be assigned to Subfactor 3.

Small Business Ratings

2.4 Factor 3 – Past Performance (Volume III)

The Past Performance Evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to provide services and/or products based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.4.1 Ratings

The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the following overall total confidence assessment ratings:

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

Note: With regards to the Best Value award decision, all Offerors rated as “Substantial Confidence” will be considered equal (with respect to each other) for the Past Performance Factor.

2.4.2 Evaluation Process

The Past Performance Evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing services and/or products that meet the Government’s needs.

Confidence is assessed at the overall total Past Performance Factor level, after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent contract examples, focusing on relevancy to the Technical Solution (Factor 1) and Management (Factor 2), as it relates to the efforts outlined in this solicitation. More relevant contract examples may have a greater impact on the confidence assessment than less relevant contract examples, while more recent contract examples may have a greater impact on the confidence sssessment than less recent contract examples. The Government may consider past performance contract examples in the aggregate, as well as on an individual basis.

In conducting the Past Performance Evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume, to include Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) responses, in addition to information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and/or similar systems; the Defense Contract Management Administration (DCMA) and/or commercial sources, etc. The Government reserves the right to use any and all information available to fully assess and evaluate the Offeror’s past performance.

2.4.2.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further.

2.4.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

(a) An assessment of recent past performance information will be made to determine if it is relevant. To be relevant, the Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent past performance contract examples obtained to determine how closely the services and/or products provided under those contract examples relate to the Technical Solution (Factor 1) and Management (Factor 2) subfactors outlined in this solicitation.

Consideration will be given to things such as similar services, complexity of the efforts, breadth and depth of skills, scope and contract-type, magnitude, and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance contract examples, to include subcontractors performing key or critical portions of the work outlined in this solicitation, will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations.

In determining relevancy for individual contracts examples, consideration will be given to the effort or portion of the effort being proposed by the Offeror or subcontractor, whose contract example is being reviewed and evaluated. Furthermore, the Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on contract examples, compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed efforts outlined in this solicitation. For example: past performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information provided, as described in Section L, as well as any other information obtained from other sources, to include PPQ, will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent past performance contract examples:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

(b) Scope, magnitude, and complexity will be assessed based on the prime and subcontractors proposed role or efforts, as it relates to the past performance contract example. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude and complexity:

(i) Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the MRMSS effort. Consideration may be given when determining relevant past performance with regard to scope:

1. Components to include: Financial, Compliance, and Business Automation/Data Warehousing.

2. Management, supervision, information security for continued maintenance for daily operations of a system or application of similar scope to MRMSS.

3. Government financial processes and reporting.

4. Familiarity with Treasury Financial Manual (TFM) Volume I, Part 6, Chapter 9500, “Revised Federal Financial Management System Requirements for Fiscal Reporting.”

5. Familiarity with OMB Circular A130 and Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).

(ii) Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the MRMSS effort. Consideration may be given when determining relevant past performance with regard to magnitude:

1. Number of end-users to include approximately 1000 internal users and 3000 external users.

2. Examples of interconnected applications and components.

(iii) Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the MRMSS effort. Consideration may be given when determining relevant past performance with regard to complexity:

1. Various applications of interconnected components.

2. Ability to troubleshoot specific components and impacts to other interconnected components and/or applications.

Relevancy for scope, magnitude, and complexity shall include descriptions of efforts related to the Technical Solution (Factor 1) and Management (Factor 2) subfactors.

2.4.2.3 Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the quality of recent, relevant past performance information. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the contract examples, PPQ responses, PPIRS/FAPIIS/CPARS data, interviews with Government and/or, if applicable, Commercial customers.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than “Satisfactory” rating on any element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. These corrective actions will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality ratings when assessing recent, relevant past performance information:

Quality Assessment Ratings

Exceptional Performance exceeded many contractual schedule and subcontractor management requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance exceeded some contractual schedule and subcontractor management requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance met contractual schedule and subcontractor management requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance did not meet some contractual schedule and subcontractor management requirements. The contractual performance reflected a serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory Performance did not meet most contractual schedule and subcontractor management requirements and recovery did not happen in a timely manner. The contractual performance contained a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

2.4.3 Assigning Ratings

(a) As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contract examples evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated confidence assessment rating. Although the Past Performance Evaluation focuses on recent efforts that are relevant to the Technical Solution (Factor 1) and Management (Factor 2) subfactors, the resulting confidence assessment rating shall be made at the factor level (Factor 3) and represents an overall evaluation of contractor past performance.

(b) In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom past performance information is not available or so sparse that no meaningful assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance information and will be assigned a confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance information will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral” confidence rating.

(c) More relevant past performance information will have a greater impact on the confidence assessment than less relevant past performance information. This may result in the more relevant contract examples receiving a higher confidence rating when compared to a less relevant contract examples. A strong record of relevant past performance information will be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Neutral” confidence rating.

2.5 Factor 4 – Price (Volume IV)

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the total evaluated price (TEP) derived from the “IDIQ Total Evaluated Price” tab in Section J, Attachment 10 “Pricing Model”. The Government shall concurrently evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable offerors for the ten (10) year ordering period including FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services” extension. Each offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated -as stated in paragraph 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 below. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this section. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services” does not obligate the Government to exercise the extension.

The TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided below. These calculations will include the ten (10) year ordering period and the 6-month Extension Period. The Extension Period is in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services”. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in Section J, Attachment 10 “Pricing Model”.

2.5.1 Price Reasonableness Evaluation

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of pricing proposals will be performed using one (1) or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b).

Unreasonable prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of adequate understanding of the requirement. Offerors are cautioned to not use underbidding as a pricing strategy with the intention of recovering under-bid costs after contract award via Requests for Equitable Adjustments (REAs) or other devices.

2.5.2 Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. Should the contracting officer determine proposed prices appear unreasonable or the possibility an offeror does not fully understand the requirement, the Offeror may be required to support price reasonableness via data other than certified cost or pricing data. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonableness. Should the need for this information occur, the request will be provided via an Evaluation Notice (EN) during discussions.

2.5.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions. Additionally, the pricing proposal will be reviewed in accordance with the TEP. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The following information addresses TEP calculation methodology. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format. Instructions for completion of the Pricing Model are included in the “TEP Notes to Offerors” tab of Section J, Attachment 10 “Pricing Model” provided in the RFP.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the ten (10) year ordering period, and the six (6) month Extension Period in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend the Term of the Contract”. The six (6) month Extension Period unit prices/rates will be based on pricing proposed for Ordering Period 10. The six (6) month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary. The six (6) month Extension Period is not to be considered part of Ordering Period 10 and will be exercised as a separate option if it is utilized.

Information below details the pricing methodology to be used in evaluation of the proposed pricing and the development/calculation of the TEP.

2.5.4 TEP Calculation Methodology

The TEP for the not-to-exceed 10.5-year IDIQ ordering period is calculated as the sum of CLIN 0010 Labor, CLIN 0020 - Other Direct Costs, CLIN 0030 – ODC - Travel, and CLIN 0040 - Transition based on the “IDIQ Pricing Table” tab in Section J, Attachment 10 “Pricing Model”. The Offeror will input all proposed Year One (1) fully burdened (loaded) NTE rates, escalation, and transition hours in the “Required Information” tab in Section J, Attachment 10 “Pricing Model”, and input their other direct costs in the “IDIQ Pricing Table” tab, as required. The Extended pricing for the total 10.5 year ordering period is automatically calculated and summed across CLIN 0010 - Labor, CLIN 0020 - Other Direct Costs, CLIN 0030 – ODC Travel, and CLIN 0040 - Transition to yield the TEP.

2.5.4.1 Labor Rates/Escalation

Proposed pricing is evaluated by means of Section J, Attachment 10 “Pricing Model”. The offeror is to input their Proposed Year One (1) Fully Burdened NTE labor rates for each labor category, as well as, their proposed escalation rates for all out years listed in the “Required Information” tab. The labor categories/mix are based on MRMSS history and mission requirements. Each labor category requires the offeror to propose a fully burdened NTE labor rate.

The final derived ordering period year one (1) through ordering period year ten (10) NTE labor rates, including escalation, for each labor category will automatically calculate throughout the Excel workbook. The final calculated NTE labor rates including escalation can be found in the “IDIQ Labor Pricing Matrix”. The offeror shall not propose any rates in excess of these NTE labor rates for all future FFP and T&M labor task orders.

The final NTE rates found in the “IDIQ Labor Pricing Matrix” are multiplied by the Government estimated hours for each Ordering Period. The resulting total dollars per labor category are added together yielding a roll-up evaluated price for each ordering period. The proposed fully burdened NTE labor rates apply to all future FFP or T&M task orders.

2.5.4.2 Other Direct Costs (ODC)

The Offeror shall provide NTE unit pricing for each listed ODC for all ordering periods (year one (1) thru year ten (10)) found in the “IDIQ Pricing Table” tab of Section J, Attachment 10 “Pricing Model” highlighted in green. The license pricing will be established using the Customer Support Identifier (CSI) numbers provided in Section J, Attachment 10 “Pricing Model” for all ordering yearly ordering periods and added together to establish the ODC TEP evaluated price.

2.5.4.3 Travel

The estimated travel costs are based on MRMSS historical data and are fixed as a NTE amount.

2.5.4.4 Transition

The offeror is to fill in the required labor hours for transition in the “Required Information” tab of Section J, Attachment 10 “Pricing Model”. The required labor hours will be multiplied by the offerors Year One (1) NTE labor rates for each labor category then added together to establish the TEP for transition.

2.5.5 Rounding

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. The Government will review Pricing Model to ensure each offeror rounded to two (2) decimal places. Calculations must be based on prices limited to two (2) decimal places only. If any pricing proposal deviates from the stated format, the Government will apply the specified format which will provide the basis for extended pricing and TEP or eliminate the Offeror from competition.

2.5.6 Annual Price Changes

Proposed pricing increases greater than five percent (5%) annually will be verified and addressed pertaining to price reasonableness.

2.5.7 Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified cost or pricing data as believed necessary to support or justify their proposed pricing. All information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of price reasonableness.

2.5 Completed RFP (Volume V)

The Government will review Volume V to ensure all information has been provided IAW Section J, Attachment 9.