ATT H_ Section M_EvalFactorsForAward_DRAFT.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its

Addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced

Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the

Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

ATTACHMENT 5 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 01 April 2016, and Air Force

Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the

Acquisition Gov website, https://www.acquisition.gov/.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the

Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any technical proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency. If a deficiency is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the

Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. The Government also reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from the competitive range where the technical proposal does not require a major proposal revision, but the offeror is not among the most highly rated offerors.

1.4. Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions.

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(d)(5). The competitive range determination can be based on

Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final

Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or FAR 15.506.

1.6. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation

Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if offerors will be required to include EN responses in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The

Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how offerors will submit FPRs. The

Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation

1.7. Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned. The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal.

1.8 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Transition

Subfactor 2: Program Management

Subfactor 3: Resource/Personnel Management

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Factor 2 Past Performance and Factor 3 Price. The Order of

Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) is considered significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price).

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range. The

Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The Technical evaluation will be based on each’s offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall Technical rating

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements with little potential for disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance.

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Transition

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed transition-in approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors (ITO). This subfactor assesses the offeror’s procedures and methods to transition into full contract performance. To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that their approach will ensure they are operational by contract start date with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance in accordance with PWS 1.7.1.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Program Management

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed program management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L - Instruction to Offerors (ITO).

To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

a. A process for program management that ensures all aspects of the CE operations program are met IAW PWS 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, and 1.3.11.

b. A process for safety procedures which ensures all safety requirements are met IAW

PWS 1.6.21.

c. A quality control process that ensures all quality control requirements are met IAW PWS

1.6.20.

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Resource/Personnel Management

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed resource/personnel management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L -

Instruction to Offerors (ITO). To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

a. A manning process that ensures the offeror will successfully maintain a capable workforce to accomplish the entire scope of effort and successfully handle surges/variables in workload requirements IAW PWS 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, and Appendix 4.9 Minimum Team Complement.

b. An organizational approach and management structure which ensures an appropriately qualified, sufficiently staffed workforce to perform all PWS requirements and skill sets.

In addition, the offeror’s approach must ensure successful management of all subcontractor performance.

c. A materials acquisition approach that meets all PWS requirements, reduces material handling and ensures best value is delivered to the government.

d. An inventory management approach that ensures all inventory requirements are met

IAW PWS 1.5.2, 1.8.6, 3.1.6., 3.1.7 and 3.1.8.

2.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.1. Ratings:

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Substantial

Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.

2.3.2. Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the

Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the

Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past

Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as, but not

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.

limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past

2.4.2.1. Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent.

To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.4.2.2. Relevancy Assessment:

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s), as defined in Section L, paragraph 4.3.1), past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The

Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past

Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information submitted by offerors along with information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The

Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection

Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

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

RELEVANT

(R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope, magnitude and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the CE Services-Operations

Management requirement.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the proposed requirement.

Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

1. Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the technical subfactors.

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the CE Services-

Operations Management requirement.

2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS)

(including ratings and supporting narratives), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with

DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information which the Government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

(BLUE)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some or many.

Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive

Customer oversight and involvement was required.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.4.3. Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.3.1 above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral

Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than less relevant effort. A record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Substantial, Satisfactory, or Limited Confidence, may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral Confidence rating.

Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.5. Factor 3 –Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness), (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected, if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all offerors, including option prices. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in the tab of the Price Matrix (Attachment C) labeled “Calculation Methodology”. The

TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this tab. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all offerors. This TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided in the Price Matrix tab. These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the Phase-In Period, the Basic Period (both years), all Option

Periods, and the Six Month Extension Period. The Extension Period is in accordance with

Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in Attachment C, Price Matrix.

2.5.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The

Government may also use other techniques as needed.

2.5.2. Unbalanced pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced.

Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the

Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.5.3. Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, and must ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.5.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

2.5.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions.

The TEP calculation methodology is included in the Price Matrix (Attachment C) as a separate tab titled “Calculation Methodology.” The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the extended values for offeror’s proposed unit prices for the Phase-In Period, the Base Period (Year One and Year Two), all Option Periods, and the Six-Month Extension Period in accordance with

FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”. The Six-Month Extension Period under FAR

52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the

Government to exercise such options. The Six-month Extension Period is not to be considered part of Option 5 Period and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.

2.5.6. Pricing Particulars Evaluation

2.5.6.1. Rounding Evaluation

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. If any pricing proposal deviates from the required format, the government will apply the specified format from Section L to determine the extended pricing and TEP.

2.5.6.2. Annual Price Changes Evaluation

Proposed pricing increases greater than 5 percent annually will be verified and addressed pertaining to reasonableness, balance, and realism. Proposed pricing decreases from year to year will be verified and addressed pertaining to reasonableness, balance, and realism.

2.5.6.3. Subcontractors and Vendor Pricing Evaluation

Probable subcontractor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology used to determine subcontractor/vendor pricing fair and reasonable.

2.5.6.4. Specific Estimating Techniques and Methods Evaluation

The government will review the offeror’s basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based. These methods should be reflected in and similar to offeror’s disclosure statement.

Any deviations shall be noted and explained.

2.5.6.5. Estimating System Evaluation

As provided in the Price Volume, estimating systems will be reviewed. DCMA approval status will also be noted and any deviation from offeror’s standard practices regarding estimating utilized in proposed pricing will be reviewed.

2.5.6.6. Purchasing System Evaluation

As provided in the Price Volume, purchasing systems will be reviewed. DCMA approval will be noted. Any deviation from offeror’s approved accounting system methodology will also be reviewed.

2.5.6.7. Accounting System Evaluation

The status of offeror’s accounting system will be reviewed by the government. DCMA approval will be noted. Any deviation from offeror’s approved accounting system methodology will also be reviewed.

2.5.6.8. Past Experience Basis of Estimate Evaluation

The relevance and application of offeror’s price estimates based on past experience will be reviewed by the government.

2.5.6.9. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate / Management Decision Evaluation

The government will review the offeror’s explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. This includes review of the areas of price reduction, such as profit, volume or location discounts, indirect rate reductions and so forth. Also, offeror’s explanation of how such reduction will not affect offeror’s responsibility or put the government at performance risk will be evaluated.

2.5.6.10. Price Assumptions/Limitations/Qualifications in Development of Proposed Pricing

Evaluation

The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding price assumptions/limitations/qualifications utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand Offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate.

Additionally, these assumptions may help provide support for the Government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.5.6.11. Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) Evaluation

The Government will review the price volume to check compliance with Section L requirement to provide a table conforming (linking) the Offeror’s proposed job categories/skill levels considered subject to the SCLS with the job categories/skill levels of the applicable Wage

Determination (WD) or Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

2.5.6.12. Government Field Support Agencies Evaluation

The Government will review the price volume to check compliance with Section L requirement to identify the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract

Management Office (DCMA) office.

2.5.6.13. Other Documentation Evaluation

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

2.5.6.14. Price Model Evaluation

The Government will review the electronically encoded price/cost model in support of the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The price/cost model submitted will be reviewed for consistency with and duplication of the logic and mathematical formulas reflected in the paper copy of your proposal. Review of this model will include such areas as all direct expenses and all indirect expenses. Direct expenses will be reviewed for proposed hourly rates, number of hours, material costs estimated, and equipment costs proposed. Indirect expenses will be reviewed for the rates proposed and any/all items included in the various rate developments.

Review of the price model will include the support provided for the proposed unit prices, indicate the proposed prices are based on an adequate understanding of contract requirements, and ensure the proposed prices do not pose an unacceptable risk to

2.5.7. Price Matrix

The proposed unit prices provided in the Price Matrix (electronic spreadsheet) will be used to calculate the TEP. The TEP will be used to evaluate the proposals as specified under this factor. The offeror shall input proposed unit prices into the bright yellow colored boxes of the

Price Matrix spreadsheet. The spreadsheet will automatically calculate the extended pricing using the estimated evaluation quantities provided by the government. The Price Matrix will automatically calculate the Firm Fixed Price Performance portion (92% of extended price) and the Quality Performance Indicator portion (8% of extended price) of the extended pricing. The

Price Matrix will automatically fill in the 6-month Extension Period unit prices from the last

Option Period’s prices input in the Price Matrix. Evaluation quantities provided are for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the government in any way.

Attachment C to RFP: Price Matrix