25_C-5 SDC Section M.pdf

Section M Attachment 25 27 April 2022

TRADEOFF PROCEDURE

SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN UTILIZATION AND TECHINCAL ACCEPTABILITY

WITH PAST PERFORMANCE, TECHINCAL/TECHINCAL RISK, AND COST/PRICE

TRADEOFF

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation.

A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable Small Business Participation, tradeoffs may be made between technical risks, past performance and cost/price. Proposals with a technically unacceptable rating shall be deemed ineligible for award. Within Factor I, Technical, both Subfactors are of equal importance.

When combined, technical risk (which includes both Technical Acceptability/Unacceptability and Technical Risk) and past performance are considered significantly more important than cost/price. 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 lower technical risk and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. 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 and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

B. Relative Importance of Factors: Factors considered are Factor I Technical (which includes the Technical Acceptability/Unacceptability and the Technical Risk Rating), Factor II Past Performance, Factor III Small Business Participation, and Factor IV Cost/Price proposal. Within Factor I, Technical, both Subfactors are of equal importance.

When combined, technical risk and past performance are considered significantly more important than cost/price. 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 lower technical risk and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. It should be noted that Factor III, Small Business Participation will be evaluated strictly on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and therefore will not be considered in the tradeoff decision.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP/Total Compensation Plan/Cross Reference Matrix

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP (excluding Section B of the Schedule) shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated solicitation requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

2. Total Compensation Plan: The Professional Employee Compensation Plan submitted in response to the solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR clause 52.222-

46. The Compensation Plan will be relied upon as one of the elements in determining if an offeror is responsible and subsequently factor in to the determination of eligibility for award.

3. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents (Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation.

If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

C. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the two subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS 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. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. All subfactors are of equal importance.

1.1 Subfactor 1: Production Plan: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a successful Production Plan. A successful Production Plan is acceptable when it successfully addresses the following criteria:

1.1.1 Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) Approach and Schedule of

Tasks The Offeror’s PDM approach and schedule of tasks is acceptable when it successfully meets the following criteria:

a. Successfully demonstrates an approach that satisfies how the offeror intends to organize, manage, and facilitate Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) and Unscheduled Depot Level Maintenance (UDLM) workloads.

b. Successfully demonstrates a schedule of tasks from pre-induction of aircraft through sell of completed PDM activities. Offeror’s schedule of tasks will be reviewed for sequencing of tasks, duration of tasks, reasonableness of task timelines, understanding of interdependencies between tasks (task predecessors/successors, identification of critical path activities being logical, critical subcontractor interdependencies are known and logical), and the overall proposed schedule/IMS conveys a logical understanding of the program and sequencing of work required.

c. Successfully identifies potential risks and challenges associated with the narrative description and the schedule of tasks.

The PDM Approach and Schedule of Tasks should incorporate assumptions described in Section L,II.C.3.

1.1.2 Manpower Skills and Certification Narrative

The Offeror’s Manpower Skills and Certification narrative approach is acceptable when it demonstrates a plan for manpower for the pre-production activities, PDM, UDLM, and repair/modification tasks (to include quantity of required personnel, skill mixes, personnel available, training plan and required certifications, and a phased plan for hiring additional personnel, if needed to meet requirements). A successful Manpower Skills and Certification Narrative also addresses quantity and quality of personnel needed and provides descriptions of how their manpower skills and certification narrative leads to successful accomplishment of PWS requirements.

An acceptable/successful approach will be interpreted to mean that the narrative provided conveys understanding of the required mix of personnel needed to support PWS requirements, manning certification requirements and manning plans support the overall assumptions for inductions. Reference assumptions Section L,II.C.3.

1.1.3 Engineering and Repair Narrative

The Offeror’s Engineering and Repair narrative is acceptable when it successfully demonstrates an approach to repair one metal bond honeycomb Torque Deck Panel. A successful narrative includes a description of damage, to include method of determining damage, proposed solution including engineering analysis, description of maintenance and execution of repair description, including metal bond materials selection process. A successful narrative also includes a description of personnel required during each phase of this repair, support equipment and any special tooling required and any required Quality Assurance/Quality Control in execution of the repair. An acceptable sample material certification includes adequate information/description whereas SPO engineering would have approved the initial submission. Challenges, concerns, or other considerations must also be adequately identified.

Assumptions: All engineering data required to perform the repair is available, as referenced to the TO below. Assume there are no Torque Deck Panels available in the supply chain.

Scenario response is acceptable when it successfully demonstrates an approach to detail the structural bonding process in specific enough detail to express depth of understanding and comprehension of the structural bonding process.

1.1.4 Supply Support Narrative

The Offeror’s Supply Support narrative is acceptable when it successfully describes the offeror’s overarching approach to accommodate supply needs for this requirement and improve the overall supply posture. Offeror’s adequate supply support narratives should also include an approach to satisfy supply solutions for the landing gear drag link and door lock assembly. An acceptable response includes the following as a part of the supply solution narrative:

processes the offeror would take to resolve identified part problems, action to source parts, timelines associated with actionable steps, actions the offeror would take if suitable and/or recommended alternate part replacements are a part of their plan and consideration of timelines and advantages of the offerors proposed solution against existing supply options.

An adequate plan conveys a logical understanding of USG supply processes and procedures, as well as logical understanding of commercial supply processes, procedures and identifies alternate solutions for future implementation of supply action plans.

1.2 Subfactor 2: Facilities Plan: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an adequate Facilities Plan approach. The Facilities Plan is successful when it fully describes and addresses facilities layout, to include hangar space, ramp space, large parts storage (indoor and outdoor), back-shops, runway and taxiways, shop capabilities and constraints, to include Phosphoric Acid Anodize (PAA) / Sulfuric Acid Anodize (SAA) capability and compliance with relevant process specifications, Boeing Aircraft Corporation (BAC) 5555 and ASTM D3933-98. Successful Facilities Plans must have addressed timing to have facilities up and running. Offerors whose facilities were not already in place at the time of proposal submission, must have provided an approach to have facilities up and running to meet Depot Standup requirements of no more than 270 days.

The Facilities Plan should incorporate assumptions described in Section L,II.C.3.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor. All areas within each subfactor must be considered “acceptable” to obtain an “acceptable” rating at the subfactor level.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

3. Technical Risk Rating: Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Proposals with a technically unacceptable risk rating shall be deemed ineligible for award.

Adjectival Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

D. Volume III, Past Performance

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will be responsible for the following essential maintenance packages: Engine/Engine Changes, Life Support Equipment, or Machine/Mechanical Items or those entities expected to conduct greater than or equal to 30% of the overall effort, based on the offeror’s proposed price. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years (with at least one year of performance history) from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

Note: “Machine/Mechanical item” definition can be found in Section L.II.D.1.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a. Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past

Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c. Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, rather than a single order under a basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the dollar value, total period of performance for each order in the series.

-The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

The dollar value, total period of performance, and total quantity repaired or produced, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4, the scope and magnitude and programmatic/logistical considerations will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders submitted demonstrating the same or similar work as the instant effort, the higher greater the potential for a higher relevancy rating.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal. Overall assessment will be determined by reviewing both ‘Scope & Magnitude’ and ‘Programmatic/Logistical Considerations’ together.

Prime Contractor and Critical Subcontractor Relevancy Definitions (Includes: Scope and Magnitude, and Programmatic/Logistical Considerations)

Adjectival Rating

Description Scope and Magnitude Programmatic/Logistical Considerations

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance involved contracts or task orders $101M or greater annually, with a period of performance of greater than four (4) years.

Past Performance effort involved Major ISO, UDLM, or PDM maintenance support to C- 5 or similar heavy military aircraft (similar heavy aircraft include the following: KC-10, KC- 135, E-3, E-8, C-17, and B-52) with maximum certification take-off weight in excess of 300,000 lbs.).

Efforts with only structural repair/bonding history, with no history of Major ISO, UDLM or PDM services will not be considered very relevant.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance involved contracts or task orders $41M to 100M, with a period of performance of greater than two (2), but less than four (4) years.

Past Performance effort involved Major ISO, UDLM, PDMs or structural repairs/bonding for Large commercial / non-commercial legacy aircraft (Examples include 707, 737, 747, 757, 767) IAW ICAO Doc 4444, Chapter 4.9 (maximum take-off certification weight more than 41,000 lbs and up too, but not including 300,000 lbs), or commercial Heavy aircraft IAW ICAO Doc 444, Chapter 4.9 (maximum certification take-off weight in excess of 300,000 lbs).

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance involved contracts or task orders $15M to 40M, with a period of performance of greater than one (1), but less than two (2) years.

Past Performance effort involved Major ISO, UDLM, PDMs or structural repairs/bonding for Small aircraft IAW ICAO Doc 4444, Chapter

4.9 (maximum certification take-off weight in excess of 41,000 lbs ) and include PDM (or equivalent).

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance involved contracts or task orders of less than $15M annually and work performance was less than one (1) year in duration.

Present/past performance did not involve Major ISO, UDLM, PDM or structural repair/bonding.

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical/Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities:

Scope and magnitude of effort, and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to dollar value, total period of performance, and total quantity repaired or produced, and length of effort. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical/scope and magnitude of effort as individual considerations in the overall relevancy rating assigned. If all of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same Scope & Magnitude but involves only some of the Programmatic/Logistical Considerations, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance 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 and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219- 9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

A. Volume IV, Small Business Participation Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation proposal addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and,

iii) The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

The associated goals in paragraph iii above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal will be evaluated against the FY21 DOD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

Business Size Sub Small Business 32.25%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5.00% Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small

Business (HUBZone) 3.00%

Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5.00% Service-Disabled Veteran- Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

3.00%

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB)

3.00%

2. Small Business Participation Rating: 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 will be assigned to the Small Business Participation factor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

D. Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal Factor

1. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal, for reasonableness, balance, and cost realism. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will include an aggregate calculation of FFP and FPIF CLINs and a Most Probable Cost (MPC) for Cost CLINs, will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the best value determination.

Cost/Price will not receive an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s cost/price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404.

The offeror’s (Prime and Major Subcontractor’s) proposed unit costs/prices and rates in Attachment 01, SDC Pricing Model, will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and TEP calculation in accordance with Paragraphs 1.5(a), 1.5(b), 1.5(c), 1.5(d), 1.5(e) and 1.5(f) below. The offeror’s (Prime and Major Subcontractor’s) proposed costs in Attachment 01, SDC Pricing Model, for CLIN x005 will be evaluated for cost realism in accordance with Paragraph 1.3 below. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are advised that evaluation of Option Period I and II shall not obligate the Government to exercise said options.

1.1 Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.404 may be required to support the proposed prices, such as cost analysis.

1.2 Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated cost/price, the cost/price of one or more contract line items (Basic, Option Period I and Option Period II) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost/price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN cost/price may be due to (a) an illogical progression of rates or unit costs/prices between program years, (b) unit costs/prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; any of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost/price for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government may consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, because acceptance of the proposal could result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items. Proposed unit costs/prices/rates will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and/or quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in Attachment 01, SDC Price Model. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1.3 Cost Realism: The Government will perform cost realism analysis on the CPFF

CLIN X005’s proposed costs. Cost realism is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the offeror. Cost Realism may also be used in performance of technical risk assessments and responsibility determinations.

1.4 For cost-type CLINs: the result of cost realism analysis is the Most Probable Cost

(MPC). The MPC estimate is the Government estimate of the cost to acquire specified services based on each offeror’s proposed approach. The MPC is based upon an analysis of each offeror’s unique proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. MPC will be used in making a determination of best value. The overall evaluated MPC includes the likely cost to the Government for CLIN X005 (Basic, Option Period I and Option Period II).

1.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated price/cost or most probable cost for the CLINs as outlined below in both the Basic and Option periods. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of the option period shall not obligate the Government to exercise such option. The sum of the evaluated prices for CLINs 0001, 0002, X003, X004, X005, X006 and X007 will represent the TEP. The evaluated prices for each of the aforementioned CLINs will be calculated as explained in the following paragraphs.

(a) CLIN 0001 PDM Induction 1 and 2 (FPIF): This CLIN is a

Single Quantity Range CLIN since there is only a quantity of one to be priced with each induction. The Government will multiply the offeror’s proposed target profit rate times the offeror’s proposed target cost per unit (excluding target cost of money), yielding the calculated profit dollars per unit. The Government will add the calculated proposed target profit dollars per unit to the proposed target cost per unit and proposed target cost of money per unit, yielding the calculated proposed target price per unit. The Government will apply a Ceiling Price rate of one hundred thirty percent (130%) times the calculated proposed target price per unit, yielding the calculated proposed ceiling price per unit. The Government will multiply the calculated proposed ceiling price per unit times the respective quantity, yielding the evaluated CLIN price.

(The evaluated CLIN price is the extended calculated proposed ceiling price.) If the calculated evaluated CLIN price is not a whole dollar value, the Government will round the value to the nearest dollar for evaluation purposes.

(b) CLIN X002 PDM Inductions 3 through 16 (FPIF): This is a Minimum Quantity/Maximum Quantity CLIN containing quantity ranges. The evaluated price for this CLIN will be calculated by one of the methods described below.

(1) Single Quantity Range: The Government will multiply the offeror’s proposed target profit rate times the offeror’s proposed target cost per unit (excluding target cost of money), yielding the calculated profit dollars per unit. The Government will add the calculated proposed target profit dollars per unit to the proposed target cost per unit and proposed target cost of money per unit, yielding the calculated proposed target price per unit. The Government will apply a Ceiling Price rate of one hundred twenty percent (120%) times the calculated proposed target price per unit, yielding the calculated proposed ceiling price per unit. The Government will multiply the calculated proposed ceiling price per unit times the respective quantity, yielding the evaluated CLIN price. (The evaluated CLIN price is the extended calculated proposed ceiling price.) If the calculated evaluated CLIN price is not a whole dollar value, the Government will round the value to the nearest dollar for evaluation purposes.

(2) Multiple Quantity Ranges: In the event the offeror is willing to propose price breaks at quantity ranges less than the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ), the offeror shall enter the quantity ranges in Attachment 01 for each applicable CLIN (CLINs 0002, 1002, and 2002).

For each quantity range identified by the offeror, the Government will multiply the offeror’s proposed target profit rate times the offeror’s proposed target cost per unit (excluding target cost of money), yielding the calculated profit dollars per unit. The Government will add the calculated proposed target profit dollars per unit to the proposed target cost per unit and proposed target cost of money per unit, yielding the calculated proposed target price per unit. The Government will apply a Ceiling Price rate of one hundred twenty percent (120%) times the calculated proposed target price per unit, yielding the calculated proposed ceiling price per unit. The Government will multiply the calculated proposed ceiling price per unit times the respective quantity, yielding the evaluated price for the quantity range. (The evaluated quantity range price is the extended calculated proposed ceiling price per quantity range.) The sum of all evaluated prices for proposed quantity ranges will result in the evaluated CLIN price.

If the calculated evaluated CLIN price is not a whole dollar value, the Government will round the value to the nearest dollar for evaluation purposes.

(c) CLIN X003 UDLM FFP Labor Rates: The evaluated CLIN price will be calculated by multiplying the proposed FFP labor rate for each labor category by the Government-estimated labor hours for each category. The totals of each labor category will be summed into a total CLIN price for evaluation. For UDLM Material, the Government provides an annual estimate that the Proposed Add-on Factor will be applied. The Add-on factor shall be rounded to four decimal places and include all anticipated burdens to material. The UDLM material cost for each period (Direct material estimate plus the add-on factor costs) will be summed to determine the total UDLM material that will be included in the TEP.

(d) CLIN X004 AFTO Workload Tasks (FFP): The evaluated CLIN price will be calculated by adding together the proposed task prices at a Qty of 1 EA for each PoP.

(e) CLIN X005 O&A Rate (CPFF): The Government will calculate the most probable rate or composite rate through a cost realism analysis. The Government has identified the total estimated hours per year for budgetary purposes. The Government will multiply the most probable, fully-burdened labor rates by the Government-estimated allocations of labor hours. The resulting total will be the evaluated price/MPC for the CLIN.

(f) CLIN X006 Fuel and CLIN X007 Travel (CPFF): The Government will calculate the most probable add-on factor through a cost realism analysis. The Government has identified the estimated fuel/travel cost per year for budgetary purposes. The Government will multiply the most probable, add-on factor by the Government-estimated fuel/travel cost. The resulting total will be the evaluated price/MPC for the CLIN.

(g) CLIN X008 for Data will be Not Separately Priced.

(h) All dollar amounts provided shall round to the nearest whole dollar.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

Offerors are advised that evaluation of the option period shall not obligate the Government to exercise such option.