CONTINUATION SHEET SPE4AX-26-R-0018, SECTION M Page 1 of 4

SECTION M – EVALUATION FOR AWARD

M.1. Basis for Award.

The Government intends to award multiple contracts resulting from this solicitation for the Lighting and Electrical Long-Term Contract (LTC). The award process will use a competitive trade-off source selection conducted IAW FAR part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services and FAR part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, with evaluation of offers conducted on a line-by-line basis. The contract will be awarded to the offeror(s) who are determined to be most advantageous to the Government. The source selection will be based on the following factors:

• Factor I: Technical Acceptability

• Factor II: Cyber Security

• Factor III: Past Performance

• Factor IV: Price

This source selection team will assess pass/ fail for Factors I & II, Technical Acceptability and Cyber Security, and then apply a performance price trade-off approach (PPTO) to evaluate price and past performance, which are weighed equally. 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 past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference and, therefore, represents the best value to the Government. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

M.2. Evaluation of Proposals.

M.2.1. By submission of an offer, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and evaluation factors. A proposal determined to be non-compliant with the solicitation and in need of excessive revisions that could not be easily addressed through discussions, if conducted, may be rejected. No discussion will be held with rejected offerors, nor will any rejected offeror be given an opportunity to revise its offer after the date and time established for receipt of initial offers.

M.2.2. The Government does not assume a duty to search for clarification data to cure problems or inconsistencies with an offeror’s proposal. The failure of an offeror’s proposal to meet any given requirement of the RFP may result in the entire proposal being found to be unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.2.3. IAW FAR 52.215-1 (DEVIATION 2026-O0038) (Feb 2026)), Instruction to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition, the Government reserves the right to evaluate proposals and awards without discussions.

Therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial proposal should contain the best terms from a non-price and a cost/price position.

M.2.4. If the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) KO determines that discussions are necessary, those offerors retained in the competitive range will be given an opportunity to address weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks in their proposal. An offeror’s response to evaluation notices (ENs) and the final proposal revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may result in the proposal being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. The source selection decision will then be based on the FPRs of those offerors remaining in the competitive range after evaluation of the FPRs.

M.3. Evaluation Criteria.

DRAFT

CONTINUATION SHEET SPE4AX-26-R-0018, SECTION M Page 2 of 4

M.3.1. Factor I: Technical Acceptability.

The first element of source selection is the technical review which determines whether an offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s requirements. All responsive offerors will have their non-priced technical proposals evaluated to determine if they demonstrate a thorough knowledge and understanding of the technical requirements, as well as provide a sound, compliant approach to performance. The Technical Acceptability factor will be evaluated on a pass/ fail basis. Any offeror who fails the Technical Acceptability factor will not be eligible for an award and will not be considered in the trade-off decision.

For an offer to be technically acceptable, the offeror must have a higher-level quality certification (ISO 9001:2015). A complete copy of this certification must be provided as described in Section L.7 Format of Proposals.

M.3.2. Factor II: Cyber Security.

The cyber security factor will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. The offeror’s response will be evaluated to assess compliance with the requirements cited below. Any offeror who is determined to be non-compliant under the Cyber Security factor will not be eligible for an award and will not be considered in the trade-off decision.

The offeror’s response must demonstrate compliance with the Government’s requirements in accordance with:

(1) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFARS) 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (DEVIATION 2024-O0013, Revision 1);

(2) DFARS 252.204-7019, Notice of NIST SP 800-171 DoW Assessment Requirements;

(3) DFARS 252.204-7020, NIST SP 800-171 – DoW Assessment Requirements; and

(4) DFARS 252.204-7021 – Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Requirements.

This factor requires the contractor to demonstrate their ability to follow and comply with all National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) policies of the Lighting and Electrical LTC. Furthermore, this factor will confirm that the Contractor agrees that, at the time the Department of War (DoW) imposes the new Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) process, they will comply with the policy and secure the required certification, regardless of the potential that the new policy may not require active DoW contract holders to comply. The Government reserves the right to review contract NIST compliance, which may require additional documentation, during contract performance.

M.3.3. Factor III: Past Performance.

M.3.3.1. The offeror’s present and/or past performance experience shall be evaluated to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the proposed contract requirements. The offeror may also describe the present/past performance experience of any significant partner, joint venture, critical subcontractor, predecessor entity, etc., who will be performing the proposed contract. The offeror shall clearly detail how the experience of the significant partner, joint venture, critical subcontractor, predecessor entity, etc. is relevant to performance of the proposed contract requirements. Experience of a significant partner, joint venture, critical subcontractor, predecessor entity, etc. shall be evaluated as equal to the experience of the prime offeror. The past performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated recent (i.e., currently ongoing or completed within the last three calendar years from the solicitation open date) and relevant record of performance in supplying services and products that are the same or similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude (i.e., dollar value, volume, etc.) to the requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.3.2. The evaluation of this factor will be based on recency, relevancy, and quality. Relevancy is based on an assessment at the contract level, and confidence is based on an overall assessment.

Definitions:

CONTINUATION SHEET SPE4AX-26-R-0018, SECTION M Page 3 of 4

• Recency is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred.

Recency is generally expressed as a period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

• Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity between the support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/ teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements, and a measure of the likelihood the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

• Quality is the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance.

M.3.3.3. Relevancy and Confidence Assessment. The following relevancy ratings shall be used in the past performance evaluation.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

After ratings for relevancy have been assigned, a confidence assessment is determined which reflects, based on the quality of the offeror’s performance on the assessed present/past performance, an expectation of the offeror’s successful performance of the requirements herein. The following confidence assessments shall be used in the evaluation of the past performance factor.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description 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.

CONTINUATION SHEET SPE4AX-26-R-0018, SECTION M Page 4 of 4

M.3.3.4. An offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably when it has no record of relevant past performance or when information on the offeror’s past performance is not available; a “Neutral” rating/assessment is assigned under these circumstances. An evaluation of neutral/ unknown confidence will not eliminate an offeror from the overall review and evaluation of its proposal for the requirement herein.

M.3.3.5. A record of favorable relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral” rating. Likewise, a recent relevant record of favorable performance may receive a higher rating than a less recent relevant record of favorable performance. The past performance of the offeror will be weighed as equal to the past performance of any significant partner, joint venture, critical subcontractor, predecessor entity, etc.

M.3.3.6. Adverse past performance for which an offeror did not previously have an opportunity to comment will be handled through communications or discussions, in accordance with FAR 15.204-2 and FAR 15.202(a)(2).

M.3.4. Factor IV: Price.

M.3.4.1. Material Pricing. The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the price factor will be price reasonableness and balance.

Fixed material prices are established and are subject to an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) on an annual basis pursuant to Procurement Note C09, Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) – Department of Labor Index and Note L24, Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) – Established Prices. Material prices will be paid to the vendor by DLA per delivery order against the Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) associated with the NSN.

A minimum bid percentage of 25% of the National Stock Numbers (NSNs) found in the attached Schedule B is required. Failure to submit prices for at least 25% of the solicited item population may result in an unacceptable price proposal, and thus, may not be considered for award. As stated in Section L, Unit prices will be evaluated using the Estimated Annual Quantities (EAQs), unless the Minimum Order Quantity (MOQ) exceeds the EAQ. In those cases, the MOQ will be used for evaluation. DLA acknowledges that some items in this population have zero or very low demand reflected in the EAQ.

M.3.4.2. Reasonableness. Adequate price competition is expected to support the determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be utilized to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis, additional cost data may be required to support the proposed price in accordance with FAR 15.4.

M.3.4.3. Balance. Unbalanced pricing is discussed in FAR 15.404-6. Unbalanced pricing exists when the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or underestimated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether unbalanced separately priced line items exist. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.3.4.4. Material Price. The material price will be a consideration in the best value tradeoff source selection and will be calculated on a line-by-line basis based on the pricing provided for each year of the base period. The price offered for each year will be multiplied by the EAQ and any additional costs (i.e.

testing costs) will be added, which will result in a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors are advised that the evaluation of item prices shall not obligate the Government to award each item.