ATCH-03 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

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 DAFFARS 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. Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance 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 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 (SST’s) evaluations of the factors 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. The Government will be requesting Pre-Award surveys for the offerors who enter the competitive range. A final contract 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.

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.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluations, the “correction potential” of the proposal.

The judgement of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If one (1) or more aspects of an offeror’s proposal do not meet the Government’s requirements and the proposal is not considered to be correctable without substantial rewrite, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. 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 SSA, 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.

2. Factors and Subfactors: The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following Factors:

• Factor I: Past Performance

• Factor II: Cost/Price

Relative Importance of Factors: Factor I, Past Performance, is significantly more important than Factor

II, Cost/Price. However, Factor II, Cost/Price, is an important consideration in the best value award decision.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP 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. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents Statement of Work (SOW), 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, Past Performance Factor

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 joint venture is defined as a contractual agreement joining together two (2) or more parties to undertake a particular business transaction or project and is intended to exist for a limited time period. The individual entities may retain their individuality and operate under a joint venture agreement or the joint venture creates a separate corporation, limited liability company, or membership. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will perform welding or assembly of welded components, or manufacture of trailer assemblies, bearing carriers, brake carriers or sheaves.

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 fifteen (15) years 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.

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

a) Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS): Pursuant to DFARS PGI 204-76(b), (c)(3) and (e), the Government will assess the offeror’s profile in SPRS for supplier risk, including, but not limited to, quality and delivery, to consider the risk of unsuccessful performance and supply chain risk.

IAW DFARS 252.204-7024, offerors may access their own risk assessments and the SPRS User Guide at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm. Additionally, SPRS evaluation criteria are available at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_DataEvaluationCriteria.pdf

b) 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 Past Performance volume. Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), SPRS, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

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.

c) 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. The availability of CPARS reports constitutes an offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor as having 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.

d) Key Personnel: For offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past fifteen (15) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment. Aggregate: The Government may consider an offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor’s contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence assessment rating, should the present and past performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an offeror’s/joint venture member’s/critical subcontractor’s four (4) efforts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant (but at least somewhat relevant) when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may reflect greater scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment. Then, considering the offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor’s respective role and their work in aggregate, a confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the team as a whole.

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 shall 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.

https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_DataEvaluationCriteria.pdf

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror shall have provided the total dollar value, period of performance, total quantity produced, type and complexity of data deliverables, and testing 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 Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total Quantity

Produced/Repaired for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

• The Government shall look at the testing conducted across the series of orders to arrive at an Overall Testing for the series of orders.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced, Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, and Overall Testing 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 L, Paragraph II.D.4.

Note: As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.C.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

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.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total dollar value, length of effort, quantity produced, type and complexity of data deliverables, and testing of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4.1 below.

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 four (4) submitted efforts, as well as any efforts obtained via the cover letter and/or other means. The Government will consider the following relevancy definitions as well as the logistical and programmatic considerations included in the note proceeding the definitions in the overall relevancy assessment for each effort. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

NOTE: The Very Relevant and Relevant criteria contain two components: Section A and Section B.

Section A addresses manufacturing features and Section B addresses testing. For all efforts submitted, the offeror must identify if and how the submitted effort satisfies the criteria of Section A and/or Section B.

For the purpose of this solicitation, Dynamic Dead Load Testing is defined as Aircraft Arresting System testing at NAVAIR/NAWCAD in Lakehurst NJ on the Jet Car Track Site, successfully stopping weights between 19,000 and 69,000 pounds at speeds between 80 and 180 knots in less than 1,200 feet.

The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume II of its proposal:

Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Very relevant efforts must demonstrate aspects of manufacturing and build-to-print* efforts for any type of aircraft arresting system; both requirements of Section A and Section B must be demonstrated. To be considered very relevant, the manufacturing features of the mobile type aircraft arresting system shall include all of the following:

*Build-to-Print definition: process in which a manufacturer produces products, equipment, or components according to the customer’s exact specifications.

Section A:

• Energy Absorber Rotary Style Hydraulic Friction Brakes comprising 8 or more brake disks. Metal machining of hydrostatic brake carriers from circular 1018, 1025 or A36 steel bodies 20” or greater in diameter, containing vertical holes, vertical bores, and horizontal holes intersecting the vertical bores.

• Fabrication of welded steel assemblies greater than or equal to 200” in length, 60” in height and 90” in width, in which 20 or more weldments are performed and inspected to AWS D1.1 or D1.3, comprised of ASTM A36 components attached to ASTM A500 longitudinal beams.

• Energy absorption capability of 80 million foot pounds or greater.

• 14,000 pounds or greater Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) (Total of Trailer and Energy Absorber).

• Any style of trailer steering.

• Hydraulically actuated lifting and lowering mechanism for the trailer.

• Military style technical data package creation (technical orders/manuals, spare parts data, and/or

2D/3D drawings).

To be considered very relevant, installation or testing tasks for end item mobile type aircraft arresting systems shall have included 1 of the following 2:

Section B:

• Successfully completed aircraft arresting system dynamic dead load testing at NAVAIR in Lakehurst NJ.

• Post installation Certification Engagement performed with F-15, F-16, or F-22 Aircraft.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts must demonstrate aspects of manufacturing and build- to-print efforts for any type of system; both requirements of Section A and Section B must be demonstrated. To be considered relevant, the manufacturing features of the AAS shall have included all of the following:

Section A:

• Hydraulic pump, lines and controls

• Welded steel components

• Total weight in excess of 2,000 pounds

To be considered relevant, installation or testing tasks for the item/system must have included 1 of the following 2:

Section B:

• Successfully completed aircraft arresting system dynamic dead load testing at NAVAIR in Lakehurst NJ.

• Post installation Certification Engagement performed with F-15, F-16, or F-22 Aircraft.

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To be considered somewhat relevant, efforts must demonstrate manufacturing and build to print efforts for any type of system consisting of all of the following:

• Hydraulic pump(s), lines, and controls

• Welded steel components

• Total weight in excess of 2,000 pounds

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

4.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

• Testing: First Article Testing (FAT) using detailed test procedures developed by the Government in accordance with MIL-STD-3036, the tailored MIL-STD-3035 and the SOW

• Quantities: 162 BEQ (2 deliveries per month after Government receipt of first delivery, 8 deliveries per month during surge)

• Duration of Time: 8 Years

• Technical Data Package: MAAS Drawing 201018515

• Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable; however, the offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against the Government’s estimate.

• Type of Data Deliverables: Status Reports, Test/Inspection Report, Delivery Reports, etc.

5. Quality of Performance: As described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and FAR 15.304(c)(2), the past performance evaluation shall evaluate quality of performance. The Government will assess the past performance quality of recent efforts that demonstrate some level of relevancy, as discussed above.

The Government reserves the right to utilize any and all available means to obtain quality of performance information including, but not limited to, CPARS, DCMA records, questionnaire responses, interviews, etc.

In terms of available CPARS, the Government reserves the right to conduct follow up interviews with CPARS reviewing officials as well as any current effort points of contact regarding trends in the performance. Further, the Government will make an independent determination on quality of performance;

the Government will not be bound by any ratings identified in questionnaires, interviews or CPARS, but will take into account the ratings provided as well as the narratives and gathered information to make an independent determination.

5.1. 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’/critical subcontractors’ compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Participation 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 four (4) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor, did the offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor 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/critical subcontractors included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member’s/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.

6. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: The Government will evaluate the submitted efforts, as well as any efforts independently identified by the Government, for three aspects: recency, relevancy and quality of performance. These aspects will be evaluated in a sequential manner, as follows:

• Each effort will be evaluated for recency, as defined above. For those efforts determined recent, they will be evaluated for relevancy. Should an effort be determined not recent, no further evaluation of that effort will take place.

• For those efforts determined to have some level of relevancy (i.e., at least a Somewhat Relevant assigned), they will be evaluated for quality of performance.

Should an effort be determined not relevant, no further evaluation of that effort will take place.

• Quality of performance will be evaluated via questionnaire responses from customer points of contact, telephone interviews conducted with customer points of contact, review of available CPARS, etc., as discussed above. Should the Government be unable to obtain quality of performance information for any effort (i.e., no questionnaires returned, customer points of contact unresponsive, no CPARS available, etc.), that effort will not be considered as a part of the confidence assessment rating.

In order to be considered within the confidence assessment, discussed below, each effort shall demonstrate recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Should any of these three aspects be missing or unable to be determined/evaluated for any effort, that effort will not be included within the confidence assessment.

As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, as described above, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. It is imperative to note that the assignment of a performance confidence assessment rating is not solely determined on the relevancy ratings. Instead, all three elements of the past performance evaluation (i.e., recency, relevancy and quality of performance) are all considered in the performance confidence assessment rating assignment. The areas that make up the effort relevancy ratings (both scope and magnitude of effort and complexities) are considered in the assignment of the performance confidence assessment rating assignment. Offerors are hereby cautioned that just having recent and Very Relevant, Relevant, and/or Somewhat Relevant efforts does not guarantee a “Satisfactory” or higher performance confidence assessment rating; the quality of performance information will also be taken into consideration in the assignment of any performance confidence assessment rating. 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

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to

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.

D. Volume III, Cost/Price Proposal: The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed costs/prices in the MAAS Price Matrix submitted in Volume III for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs A and B below. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph C and 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.

A. 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 price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

B. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN price may be due to (a) illogical progression of rates, factors or unit prices between program years, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government will consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in MAAS Price Matrix and Schedule B in the RFP. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. TEP: The sum of the evaluated prices for each CLIN will represent the TEP.

The evaluated CLIN prices will be calculated as follows:

i. For CLINs 0001, 0004, 1001, 2001, 2002, 3001, 3002, 4001, 4002, 5001, 5002, 6001, and 6002: Offerors are to enter the proposed unit price for the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) noted for each CLIN. In the event the offeror is willing to propose quantity/price breaks, the offeror shall enter the quantity ranges in the MAAS Price Matrix for each applicable CLIN.

The evaluated price will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price times the respective quantity. If quantity/price breaks are proposed, the government will multiply the proposed range unit price(s) by the quantity included in each range, up to the BEQ, to obtain an evaluated price for that CLIN.

ii. CLINs 0002, 0003, 1002, 2003, 3003, 4003, 5003, and 6003 are for Data and is Not Separately Priced (NSP) and therefore will not be part of the TEP calculation. These CLINs are the only ones offerors are allowed to propose as NSP.

iii. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are advised that evaluation of BEQ and options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options, nor shall it obligate the Government to order the BEQs stated. The sum of the evaluated prices of each CLIN will represent the TEP.

Below is an example of determining a TEP. The example is provided for demonstration purposes only and is not inclusive of all contract periods nor all CLINs. The Government estimated dollars, hours, rates, quantities, and/or prices contained within are arbitrary numbers. The example is in no way reflective of the actual/total requirements as defined in the RFP. It is provided only as a means of identifying how the various types of calculations will be performed.

CLIN BEQ Unit Price Total Price 0001 1 $500.00 $500.00

0002 NSP

0003 NSP

0004 29 $500.00 $14,500.00 1001 22 $500.00 $11,000.00

1002 NSP

2001 22 $500.00 $11,000.00 2002 22 $450.00 $9,900.00

2003 NSP

Total Evaluated Price $46,900.00

For the CLINs noted above, offerors will choose to propose a single unit price for the entire BEQ or to propose quantity breaks. In the event an offeror proposes a quantity/price break, an example of the evaluated price is as follows:

Quantity Range Example:

CLIN BEQ From To Quantity Unit Price Total Price 0001 1 1 $500.00 $500.00

0002 NSP

0003 NSP

0004 29 1 10 10 $500.00 $5,000.00

11 20 10 $450.00 $4,500.00 21 29 9 $405.00 $3,645.00

1001 22 1 10 10 $500.00 $5,000.00

21 22 2 $405.00 $810.00

1002 NSP

2001 22 1 10 10 $500.00 $5,000.00

21 22 2 $405.00 $810.00

2002 22 1 10 10 $450.00 $4,500.00 11 20 10 $405.00 $4,050.00 21 22 2 $365.00 $730.00

2003 NSP

Total Evaluated Price $43,545.00