Amendment 0002 Continued.pdf

FIRST: Amendment 0002, Questions and Answers, dated June 15, 2018, are hereby added to this SIR.

SECOND: The minutes to the Pre-Proposal Conference held on June 13, 2018 are hereby added to this SIR.

THIRD: The attachment entitled “Longevity Information” is hereby added to this

SIR.

FOURTH: As a result of the Questions and Answers provided in Provision FIRST above, Provision L.3. Instructions for Preparation and Submission of Proposals, is hereby revised as follows:

L.3 Instructions for Preparation and Submission of Proposals

(a) The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table L.1 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table. Each volume identified in the table must be submitted in separate and distinct electronic files. The contents of each proposal volume are described in paragraphs (b) through (e) below. The data submitted should be complete, concise and relevant to the requirements of the SIR and are required to be submitted in the prescribed formats subsequently identified herein.

Technical proposals shall be submitted as separate and complete sections for each of the Technical Evaluation factors outlined in Table L.1 and Section M.

For complete and meaningful review of the proposals, responses to each evaluation factor shall be provided in a separate section and the section shall be tabbed for ease of reference as noted in Table L.1 below.

Table L.1 Proposal Organization Volume Title Required Copies Page Limitation

I Contract Documentation Original + 1 copy + CD Not Limited

II *Technical Proposal Original + 4 copies + CD Not to Exceed 100 pages, including tables Factor 1 - Contractor Experience/Personnel Sub-Factor 1.1 - Contract Experience/Personnel Sub-Factor 1.2 - Personnel Management Plan Sub-Factor 1.3 - Staffing Plan and Supervisory Management Plan

Factor 2 - Orientation Plan, Phase-In Plan and Phase-Out Plan Sub-Factor 2.1 - Orientation Plan Sub-Factor 2.2 - Phase-In Plan Sub-Factor 2.3 - Phase-Out Plan

Factor 3 - Quality Control Plan

Factor 4 - Past Performance and Experience

III Cost/Price/Solicitation Proposal Original + 2 copies + CD Not Limited NOTE: electronic disk MUST also contain the pricing spreadsheets with viewable formulas showing the calculations with cell reference in an Excel format

*No reference shall be made to prices/costs in Volume II.

(b) Proposal Volumes shall include:

(1) The offeror’s proposal shall include a table of contents, a list of tables and figures, and a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms.

(2) The offeror’s proposal must show solicitation number, name, address, and telephone numbers of the offeror and electronic email address on the Title Page, at a minimum.

(3) Volume cover shall designate volume title along with applicable page(s) the Offeror deems competition sensitive.

(4) The offeror’s proposal shall address the information listed in Table L.1 above.

(5) Format: Pages are to be typewritten, double spaced, on standard 8 1/2” X 11” letter size paper, no smaller than 12 point type with 1” margins and page numbers at the bottom of each page. Font size is allowed to vary for descriptive inserts, tables and/or foldouts. Two-sided printing will be counted as 2 pages.

For the purposes of adequacy review, missing proposal information component(s) identified above and/or non-adherence to proposal format instruction, may be considered non-responsive. Proposals found by the CO to be non-responsive may not receive further consideration.

CAUTION: Evaluators will read only up to the page limits as specified in Section L. Pages in excess of the stated limit will be removed from the proposal and the offeror shall be provided notification.

(6) Proposals will be submitted electronically in accordance with Section L, Provision 3.2.2.3-20. All volumes should be submitted in electronic format via CD/DVD-ROM or USB Flash Drive with no .zip files included. Each volume should be submitted in separately marked electronic files.

(7) Volumes II and III shall be marked 'Procurement Sensitive.' A cover sheet may be used for each volume for this designation along with the designation of the applicable page(s) the offeror deems competitively sensitive.

(c) Contract Documentation - Volume 1

(1) Tab A: Executive Summary

(2) Tab B: Contract Documentation. SIR Sections A – K

Completion of documents specified below indicates that the Offeror has read and agrees to the terms and conditions contained in the SIR/RFO. The FAA may consider offers that take exception to the terms and conditions of the SIR/RFO to be unacceptable and thereby ineligible for award. Offerors submitting such offers may not be given the opportunity to revise their offer.

(A) Section A, Solicitation, Offer and Award; Government format.

(B) Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs; Government format.

(C) Section K, Representations and Certifications; Government format. To include Small Business Administrative 8(a) certification letter.

(d) Technical Proposal – Volume II - Technical proposals shall be submitted as separate and complete sections for each of the Technical Evaluation Factors outlined in provision L.6 below and Section M. The technical proposal shall not include prices/costs or any pricing information.

(1) The technical proposal must be sufficiently detailed to enable technically oriented personnel to make a thorough evaluation and to arrive at a sound determination as to whether the proposed operations and maintenance services meet the requirements of the Government and that the offered approach is valid and practical. The technical proposal must be specific, detailed and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a through understanding of the requirements for, and the technical problems inherent in, providing services of the scope outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Clear evidence of services previously demonstrated and currently in place relating to the factors and sub-factors should be included in each evaluation area.

(2) Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with all statements in the PWS and statements paraphrasing the PWS requirements or parts thereof, are considered insufficient. Phrases such as "standard procedures will be employed," or "well-known techniques will be used," etc. will be considered insufficient.

(3) Content is more important than quantity. Technical proposal is limited to no more than 100 pages. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present complete and effective proposals are neither necessary nor desired and may be construed as an indication of the offeror's lack of cost consciousness. To expedite review of the proposals, the responses for each evaluation factor shall be provided in a separate section and the section shall be tabbed for ease of reference.

(4) If any portion of the work is to be performed by a subcontractor, the proposal must provide rationale for subcontracting, how the specific subcontractor was determined (reference AMS 3.10.2-5, Competition in Subcontracting), and the percentage of work to be performed by the subcontractor. The proposal must include supporting documentation describing each subcontractor's technical qualifications and detailed pricing information to support all subcontractor costs.

(e) Cost/Price Information – Volume III - Each offeror shall provide cost information in sufficient detail to determine cost realism. The cost information should be summarized and be traceable to each CLIN. The cost information shall be presented at least at major cost element level; e.g., Direct Labor, Labor Overhead, Other Direct Costs, General and Administrative, Profit, etc. Additional cost information may be required by the Government evaluators, if necessary, throughout the course of evaluations.

(1) The cost information should be tabbed in Volume III as follows:

(A) Basic Contract Period

(B) Options I through IV (Tabbed Separately)

(C) Estimating Rationale, Methodology, and Support

(2) Describe in detail for each cost element for each CLIN.

Explain how area wage determination entitlements will be discharged.

(3) Copies of Part I - Section B, Pricing Schedules should also be included.

b. L.4 Technical Proposals is hereby revised as follows:

FIFTH: As a result of the Questions and Answers provided in Provision FIRST above, Provision L.4, Technical Proposals, is hereby revised as follows:

L.4 Technical Proposals

To provide a fair and equitable technical evaluation of all proposals, separate and complete responses must be made to each of the following four (4) factors.

Factor 1 – Contract Experience/Personnel

Sub-Factor 1.1 - Contractor Experience

Sub-Factor 1.2 - Personnel Management Plan

Sub-Factor 1.3 - Staffing Plan and Supervisory Management Plan

Factor 2 –Orientation Plan, Phase-In Plan and Phase-Out Plan

Sub-Factor 2.1 - Orientation Plan

Sub-Factor 2.2 - Phase-In Plan

Sub-Factor 2.3 - Phase-Out Plan

Factor 3 - Quality Control Plan

Factor 4 – Past Performance and Experience

Factor 1: (Contract Experience/Personnel):

Sub-factor 1.1: Contractor Experience Offeror shall provide a narrative with at least one (1) contract, as either the Prime or as an established partnered team, sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the offeror is experienced in administering service contracts similar to that required by the SOW and valued at a minimum of $7.5 million per year *OR” with a minimum of 75 active contract employees.

Sub-Factor 1.2: Personnel Management Plan Offeror shall demonstrate their approach for planning, controlling, implementing and directing the contract effort as outlines in the SOW. The intent of this sub-factor is to determine appropriateness of proposed contract management key positions, personnel and functions.

Sub-Factor 1.3: Staffing Plan and Supervisory Management Plan Offeror shall provide evidence of a Staffing Plan and Supervisory Management Plan. The intent of this subfactor is for the offeror to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of all facets of personnel support and assistance as defined in the SOW. Offeror shall demonstrate a detailed staffing plan identifying internal resources currently available to support the requirement and plans for obtaining qualified personnel in support of the PWS. This plan must clearly demonstrate that the offeror has a policy in place that covers the range and complexity of tasks to be performed including the corporate personnel policies and practices, human resource management, recruitment and retention methods, historical and projected turnover of personnel and filling of vacancies in a timely manner.

Factor 2: Orientation Plan, Phase-In Plan and Phase-Out Plan

Subfactor 2.1: Orientation Plan

Offeror shall provide an Orientation Plan in accordance with SOW Paragraph 3.12.

Subfactor 2.2: Phase In Plan and Schedule

Offeror shall provide a Phase-In Plan and Schedule in accordance with SOW Paragraphs 3.13.

Subfactor 2.3: Phase Out Plan

Offeror shall provide a Phase Out Plan in accordance with SOW Paragraph 3.14.

Factor 3: (Quality Control Plan) Offeror shall provide a Draft Quality Control Plan in accordance with SOW Paragraph 2.11 to address all contract requirements identified in the SOW. This plan should also describe what measures shall be taken to protect the sensitive, but unclassified data that contractor employees will be provided.

Factor 4: (Past Performance) Offeror shall provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) demonstrating that the offeror is capable of managing a requirement valued at a minimum of $7.5 million per year *OR” with a minimum of 75 active contract employees. All past PPQ must receive an Overall Rating of Satisfactory or Higher for each questionnaire. Offerors shall use the PPQ listed in Attachment 4 of this SIR.

The Offeror is required to provide Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) to current or recent customers of the most relevant contracts. A minimum of two (2) but no more than four (4), completed PPQs shall be submitted directly from the Offeror’s customers to the Contracting Officer no later than the SIR closing date.

All PPQs submitted must show the projects are underway or completed with the last five (5) years.

References shall forward the questionnaire directly to the address below.

Questionnaires must be received no later than the closing date of the solicitation.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring their references transmit a questionnaire of the Contracting Office.

Attention: Cynthia Cooper

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd, MPB 380 Oklahoma City, OK 73169 Telephone: (405) 954-2601 Email: cynthia.cooper@faa.gov

The Offeror will complete Page 1 and Page 2, Section A of the Past Performance Surveys and then provide the surveys to their customers, who will in turn complete and return the surveys directly to the Contracting Officer by the due date specified on the surveys. Past Performance Surveys must be submitted to the Contracting Officer.

Surveys received after the established due date may not be evaluated. Note:

The Offeror is responsible for verifying references before submission to ensure all information is correct. The FAA will not be held responsible for those Offeror's customers who refuse to respond or provide past performance information. If the Contracting Officer fails to receive any completed forms for an offeror, the FAA will attempt to follow up with the customers once, in order to retrieve the information. After this attempt, any PPS not submitted and received by the due date/time will not be considered.

The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of Offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this SIR. The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror and other sources, such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess technical capability. The Contracting Officer will provide Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports and findings from the FAA AAQ-700/800 Vendor Performance Database, as available, for evaluation of past performance.

Discrepancies between PPQ responses and CPARS/AAQ Vendor Database must be addressed in the Final Technical Evaluation Report.

The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Evaluators will assess the performance risk associated with each proposal. The final assessment will describe the degree of confidence in the offeror’s likelihood of successful contract performance based on that offeror’s demonstrated record of performance under similar contracts.

If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, Offeror shall provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past/present performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present relevant contracts.

CAUTION: Offerors are cautioned that the FAA may use the data provided by other sources in evaluating past performance. Offerors will be given an opportunity to rebut information considered negative and relevant to the evaluation. While the FAA may consider date from other sources, the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance data rests with the Offeror.

SIXTH: As a result of the Questions and Answers provided in Provision FIRST above, Provision L.5 Subcontracting and/or Teaming Arrangements, is hereby revised as follows:

L.5 Subcontracting and/or Teaming Arrangements

(a) Where subcontracting and/or teaming arrangements are proposed, the offeror will provide a plan, which identifies the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of each subcontracting and/or teaming participant. The teaming plan will be limited to 10 pages and will not count toward the 100 page limit for the technical proposal. When a subcontracting/teaming plan is require, it shall be included as part of the technical proposal for Factor 1 - Contract Experience/Personnel, Sub-Factor 1.3 - Staffing Plan and Supervisory Management Plan.

(b) As a minimum, the plan should address the following:

(1) The plan shall identify the offeror's rationale for selection of the proposed subcontractor/teaming participants as well as the extent of participation.

Offeror's working relationship and proposal of each participant's role relative to performance of the contract effort will be identified.

(2) Since employee benefits may differ among the subcontracting and/or teaming participant and this could lead to employee performance and morale issues, describe how these issues will be addressed.

(3) The plan shall identify distribution of work assignments, acceptance and approval of deliverables among subcontractor/teaming participants prior to submission to the FAA. A manager or lead position employee of the prime or subcontractor/teaming participants may be required to assign and approve work of employees of another subcontractor/teaming participant arrangement, describe how this issue will be addressed.

(4) The offeror's plan will include measures for quality assurance, which includes roles and responsibilities for quality of deliverables. A manager or lead position employee of the prime or subcontractor/teaming participants may be required to review and approve the quality of product of employees of another subcontractor/teaming participant arrangement, describe how this issue will be addressed.

SEVENTH: As a result of the Questions and Answers provided in Provision FIRST above, Provision L.6 Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor is hereby revised as follows:

L.6 Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor

(a) If an Offeror’s response to this solicitation is favorably considered, a survey team may contact the Offeror’s facility to determine the ability to perform.

Current financial statements and other pertinent data should be available for review at that time. Examples of the areas that may be investigated and evaluated are listed below:

(1) Quality assurance

(2) Financial capability

(3) Accounting systems

(4) Other, as appropriate

(b) Offerors are advised that accomplishment of this survey is a part of the evaluation process and is not to be construed as an indication that an Offeror will receive or is in the best position to receive the resultant award.

EIGHTH: As a result of the Questions and Answers provided in Provision FIRST above, Provision M.2 Initial Screening Process, is hereby revised as follows:

M.2 Initial Screening Process

The Government will initially screen all proposals for responsiveness (timeliness, completeness, and adequacy). Only those proposals determined to be responsive through the initial screening process will be forwarded to the evaluation team for further consideration.

(a) Timeliness: No proposal or part thereof will be accepted for consideration following the closing period for this solicitation.

(b) Completeness: Timely proposals will be reviewed for completeness. Each proposal package will be reviewed for the following (reference Provision L.c, Information and Considerations affecting Offeror Proposal Submissions):

Volume Title Required Copies Page Limitation

I Contract Documentation Original + 1 copy + CD Not Limited

II Technical Proposal Original + 4 copies + CD Not to Exceed 100 Pages including tables

III Cost/Price/Solicitation Proposal Original + 2 copies + CD Not Limited NOTE: electronic disk MUST also contain the pricing spreadsheets with viewable formulas showing the calculations with cell reference in an Excel format

INCOMPLETE PROPOSALS MAY NOT RECEIVE FURTHER CONSIDERATION

(c) Adequacy: Complete proposals will be reviewed for adequacy, including proposal content and format as follows:

(1) Content:

Volume 1 Completed Contract Documentation Volume II Completed Technical Proposal Volume III Completed Cost/Price/Solicitation Proposal

(2) Format: Format. Pages are to be typewritten, double spaced, on standard 8 1/2” X 11” letter size paper, no smaller than 12 point type with 1” margins and page numbers at the bottom of each page. Font size is allowed to vary for descriptive inserts, tables and/or foldouts. Two-sided printing will be counted as 2 pages. For the purposes of adequacy review, missing proposal information component(s) identified above and/or non-adherence to proposal format instruction, may be considered non-responsive. Proposals found by the CO to be non-responsive may not receive further consideration.

CAUTION: Evaluators will read only up to the page limits as specified in Section L. Pages in excess of the stated limit will be removed from the proposal and the offeror shall be provided notification.

NINTH: As a result of the Questions and Answers provided in Provision FIRST above, Provision M.3 Technical Evaluations, is hereby revised as follows:

M.3 Technical Evaluation

The overall evaluation criteria factors used to determine the “acceptability” or “unacceptability” of the technical proposals addressing the three (3) factors/sub-factors and past performance factor are as follows:

Factor 1: (Contract Experience/Personnel):

Sub-factor 1.1: Contractor Experience

Offeror shall provide a narrative with at least one (1) contract, as either the Prime or as an established partnered team, sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the offeror is experienced in administering service contracts similar to that required by the SOW and valued at a minimum of $7.5 million per year *OR” with a minimum of 75 active contract employees.

Criteria for 1.1: The offeror must demonstrate relevant experience in administering service contracts performing work that is similar to that required by the SOW and valued at a minimum of $7.5 million per year *OR” with a minimum of 75 active contract employees.

Acceptable 1.1: The standard is met when the offeror provides documentation to demonstrate they administered at least one (1) service contract that are valued valued at a minimum of $7.5 million per year *OR” with a minimum of 75 active contract employees. Documentation must include the agency or entity name, contract numbers, contract type (i.e. firm fixed-price, labor hour) contract value, contract start-completion dates, number of employees, description of work, one (1) primary point of contact (POC) and one (1)alternate POC, including e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and their relation to this contract.

Sub-Factor 1.2: Personnel Management Plan

Offeror shall demonstrate their approach for planning, controlling, implementing and directing the contract effort as outlines in the SOW. The intent of this sub-factor is to determine appropriateness of proposed contract management key positions, personnel and functions.

Criteria 1.2:

Evidence of resumes’ of key personnel listed within the SOW Section 2.2, 2.3 and

2.5 and in accordance with AMS Clause 3.8.2-17.

Acceptable 1.2: The standard is met when the offeror provides resume of key personnel with the technical qualifications listed within the SOW Section 2.2, 2.3, and 2.5 and in accordance with AMS Clause 3.8.2-17.

Sub-Factor 1.3: Staffing Plan and Supervisory Management Plan

Offeror shall provide evidence of a Staffing Plan and Supervisory Management Plan. The intent of this subfactor is for the offeror to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of all facets of personnel support and assistance as defined in the SOW. Offeror shall demonstrate a detailed staffing plan identifying internal resources currently available to support the requirement and plans for obtaining qualified personnel in support of the PWS. This plan must clearly demonstrate that the offeror has a policy in place that covers the range and complexity of tasks to be performed including the corporate personnel policies and practices, human resource management, recruitment and retention methods, historical and projected turnover of personnel and filling of vacancies in a timely manner.

Criteria 1.3:

Evidence of a complete and comprehensive Staffing Plan and Supervisory Management Plan in accordance with the SOW.

Acceptable 1.3:

The standard is met when the offeror provides a staffing plan that describes the labor skill mix and plan or approach to hire qualified personnel to meet the SOW requirements. Plans should include policies and procedures describing the offerors disciplinary, reward and recruitment process and plan to fill vacancies in a timely manner.

Factor 2: Orientation Plan, Phase-In Plan and Phase-Out Plan

Subfactor 2.1: Orientation Plan

Offeror shall provide an Orientation Plan in accordance with SOW Paragraph 3.12.

Criteria 2.1:

Evidence of an Orientation Plan in accordance with SOW Paragraph 3.12.

Acceptable 2.1:

The standard is met when the offeror provides an Orientation Plan in accordance with SOW Paragraph 3.12.

Subfactor 2.2: Phase In Plan and Schedule

Offeror shall provide a Phase-In Plan and Schedule in accordance with SOW Paragraphs 3.13.

Criteria 2.2:

Evidence of a Phase-In Plan and Schedule in accordance with SOW Paragraph 3.13.

Acceptable 2.2:

The standard is met when the offeror provides a Phase-In Plan and Schedule in accordance with SOW Paragraph 3.13.

Subfactor 2.3: Phase Out Plan

Offeror shall provide a Phase Out Plan in accordance with SOW Paragraph 3.14.

Criteria 2.3:

Evidence of a Phase Out Plan in accordance with SOW Paragraph 3.14.

Acceptable 2.3:

The standard is met when the offeror provides a Phase Out Plan in accordance with SOW Paragraph 3.14.

Factor 3: (Quality Control Plan)

Offeror shall provide a Draft Quality Control Plan in accordance with SOW Paragraph 2.11 to address all contract requirements identified in the SOW. This plan should also describe what measures shall be taken to protect the sensitive, but unclassified data that contractor employees will be provided.

Criteria for 3:

The offeror shall provide evidence of a thorough Draft Quality Control Plan in accordance with SOW Paragraph 2.11 to address all contract requirements identified in the SOW. This plan should also describe what measures shall be taken to protect the sensitive, but unclassified data that contractor employees will be provided.

Acceptable 3:

The standard is met when the offeror provides a thorough Draft Quality Control Plan in accordance with SOW Paragraph 2.11 to address all contract requirements identified in the SOW. This plan should also describe what measures shall be taken to protect the sensitive, but unclassified data that contractor employees will be provided.

Factor 4: (Past Performance)

The offeror shall provide minimum of one (1) but no more than four (4), completed Past Performance Questionnaires demonstrating that the offeror is capable of managing a requirement valued at a minimum of $7.5 million per year *OR” with a minimum of 75 active contract employees. All past Performance Questionnaires must receive an Overall Rating of Satisfactory or Higher for each questionnaire.

Criteria for 4:

The offeror shall provide a minimum of one (1) completed Past Performance Questionnaires demonstrating that the offeror is capable of managing a requirement valued at a minimum of $7.5 million per year *OR” with a minimum of 75 active contract employees. All past Performance Questionnaires must receive an Overall Rating of Satisfactory or Higher for each questionnaire.

Acceptable 4:

The standard is met when the offeror provides a minimum of one (1) completed Past Performance Questionnaires demonstrating that the offeror is capable of managing a requirement valued at a minimum of $7.5M million per year *OR” with a minimum of 75 active contract employees. All past Performance Questionnaires must receive an Overall Rating of Satisfactory or Higher for each questionnaire.

TENTH: As a result of the Questions and Answers provided in Provision FIRST above, Provision M.4 Volume III, Cost/Price Analysis, is hereby revised as follows:

Volume III, Cost/Price Analysis

(a) The Government will confirm the accuracy of each offeror’s total price calculation and assess the realism and reasonableness of the proposed costs for the unit prices in addition to assessing the total evaluated price for performing all services. The Government may make adjustments for any mathematical errors discovered in the price evaluation process. The total evaluated price will consist of the total of the Base year period and Option years One (1) through Four (4).

(b) The Cost/Price/Solicitation proposals will be evaluated by the CO. An evaluated assessment will be made independently for each proposal of the cost/pricing resented by each Cost/Price/Solicitation Proposal.

(c) The separate cost/price/solicitation proposals in support of all items identified in Section B will be reviewed for completeness of data, reasonableness of allocation, realism of cost, realistic information and balanced pricing. Specifically, the FAA will assess each cost/price/solicitation proposal to ensure that data provided are sufficient to allow complete price analysis and evaluation of proposed prices and include all information required by Section L of the SIR. If reasonableness of price is not determined through adequate price competition, then the FAA will require the review of rationale and supporting data to establish the reasonableness of proposed elements of cost.

1. Completeness:- Review of the proposal to ensure data provided are sufficient to allow complete analysis and evaluation of proposed costs and include all.

Information as requested in SIR.

2. Reasonableness: Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal. Reasonableness will be based on the total cost/price.

3. Realism: Overall review of proposal cost elements and estimating methodologies employed to determine whether the resulting prices are realistic based on the performance described.

4. Unrealistically Low Costs or Prices: Unrealistically low proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.

5. Unbalanced Pricing: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk, and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluation price, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly over or under, as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government may analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to the technical proposal and the proposed prices. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.