Attach 23 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award 12 Jan 2022.pdf

FA300222R0002

Attachment 23

12 Jan 22

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 INTRODUCTION. This section outlines the basis for evaluation of the Offeror’s capabilities and proposals submitted in response to the solicitation. The evaluation criteria describe the scope of the evaluation to be performed on each proposal. Section L of the RFP describes the proposal content and format requirements.

M.1.1 Basis for Award:

M.1.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub factors. 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.

M.1.3 This acquisition is a competitive, 8(a) small business set-aside, best value, subjective tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition website, https://acquisition.gov. A contract will be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 as supplemented, and whose:

(1) Proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is a 8(a) Small Business;

(2) Proposed technical subfactors receive a rating of “Acceptable” for Subfactors 1, 2, and

3, and a rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, or “Acceptable” for Subfactor 4;

(3) Proposal receives a Performance Confidence assessment rating of “Substantial

Confidence”, “Satisfactory Confidence”, or “Neutral Confidence”;

(4) Proposed Price is determined fair and reasonable and not unbalanced;

(5) Proposal provides documentation of an approved Accounting System;

(6) Is determined to be responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1; and

(7) Proposal is determined by the SSA to represent the best value to the Government.

M.1.3.1 This is a subjective tradeoff source selection and, for those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between technical, past performance, and price. See M.2.3 below for the relative order of importance of Factors and Subfactors.

M.1.3.2 The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Laughlin Air Force Base (AFB) Base Operations Support (BOS) requirement. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors; therefore, the initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

M.1.3.3 While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (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. Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the factors contained in this solicitation.

M.1.4 After initial evaluation of each Offeror’s Technical, Price and Past Performance, award may be made to the Offeror that represents the best value to the Government without entering into discussions. It’s the Government’s intent to award without discussions; however, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g. the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Exchanges conducted IAW FAR 15.306(a)(1) and FAR 15.306(a)(2) will not constitute discussions and therefore the Contracting Officer (CO) reserves the right to award a contract without entering into discussions.

M.1.4.1 While it’s the Government intention to award without discussions, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government elects to conduct discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to further 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. If an Offeror’s proposal is determined to no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of an elimination decision will be provided to unsuccessful Offerors IAW FAR 15.503. Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request to receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, Preaward Debriefing of Offerors or FAR 15.506, Postaward Debriefing of Offers.

M.1.4.1.1 If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to establish a competitive range and hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions submitted to the Government in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may render the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

M.1.4.1.2 After conclusion of discussions and receipt of FPRs, the Government will make award to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

M.1.5 Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements IAW Section L 5.10. The Government reserves the right to determine any proposed exceptions unacceptable.

M.1.6 Accounting System. An adequate accounting system is not an evaluation criterion.

However, a contract may only be awarded to an Offeror with a DFARS 252.242-7006 compliant accounting system determined by DCAA, the cognizant DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or an independent CPA. Note: Acceptability of the Independent CPA review is contingent on Contracting Officer approval.

M.1.7 Preaward Survey. A contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who is determined responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1. In determining contractor responsibility, the CO may require the assistance of DCMA to perform a Preaward Survey.

M.2 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors for Award:

M.2.1 Selecting an Offeror for award will be based on an evaluation of proposals against three primary factors as outlined in Table M.1, Factors and Subfactors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. Factors and Subfactors are detailed below. A proposal that does not meet the requirements of the solicitation may not be eligible for award.

M.2.2 Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation and its stated evaluation Factors and Subfactors for award. Proposals will not be compared or measured against each other during the evaluation. The Government’s technical evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and other factors identified in the solicitation.

Table M.1 - Factors and Subfactors

Factor and Subfactors Criteria Description Factor 1

Subfactor 1 (A/U) Subfactor 2 (A/U) Subfactor 3 (A/U) Subfactor 4 (Trade-off)

Technical Program Management Approach Civil Engineering Approach Logistics Approach Staffing Approach

Factor 2 Past Performance Factor 3 Price

M.2.3 Relative Order of Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance is as follows: Technical is more important than Past Performance or Price. Past Performance is more important than Price. IAW FAR 15.304(e), Technical and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Price, however, Price is a factor in the best value trade-off.

This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and Subfactors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority, and/or overall business approach, and/or superior past performance, of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

M.2.3.1 Technical Factor. Subfactors 1 through 3 will be rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” and will not be included in the trade-off process. Subfactor 4 will be rated as “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal” or “Unacceptable”. The Government may trade up from a lower rated technical rating for Subfactor 4 as part of the best value trade-off decision. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror that is rated as “Unacceptable” in Technical Subfactor 1, 2, 3, or 4.

M.2.3.2 Past Performance Factor. Past Performance will be rated as “Substantial”, “Satisfactory”, “Neutral”, “Limited”, or “No” Confidence. The Government may trade up from a lower rated past performance rating as part of the best value trade-off decision. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror that is rated as having “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.”

M.3 Evaluation of Offeror’s Proposal:

M.3.1 Factor 1 – The Technical Factors and Subfactors, listed in Table M.1 above will be evaluated using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 March 2016, as shown below in Tables M.2 and M.3 below. The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Failure to provide a complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the Offeror’s proposal is “Unacceptable.” Detailed instructions are included in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, of this solicitation. During evaluation of each proposal, under Factor 1 the Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” to Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 (see Table M.2 below) and a rating of “Outstanding” (Blue), “Good” (Purple), “Acceptable” (Green), “Marginal” (Yellow), or “Unacceptable” (Red) to Subfactor 4 (see Table M.3 below). If any Subfactor 1 - 4 is determined to be technically unacceptable, then the Technical proposal will be determined “Unacceptable” and unawardable.

M.3.2 Technical/Risk Subfactor 4 - Evaluation of this subfactor shall focus on meeting the Government's requirements, and any strengths, deficiencies, risks and weaknesses of the Offeror's proposal using the color ratings in Table M.3 below. The Government may favorably consider proposed innovations and efficiencies in cost, schedule, and performance that are of benefit to the Government, and can be made contractually binding. To support the Government's determination of an actual benefit, the Offeror may discuss any cost advantages that may or may not appear in the price proposal.

M.3.2.1 If an Offeror's proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a government requirement, this will be considered a deficiency in the Offeror's proposal and the proposal may be rendered ineligible for award.

M.3.2.2 The Government will determine whether those aspects of the proposal are Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable, using the Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Table M.2 – Technical Rating (Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 only)

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Method in Table M.3 and the Technical Risk Rating Method in Table M.4, as shown below.

The technical ratings will document the evaluation of the quality of the Offeror's technical solution for meeting the Government's requirement for Subfactor 4.

M.3.2.3 Technical/Risk - Subfactor 4 will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures Technical Ratings Table M.3 below. The combined technical/risk rating will consider risk (with weaknesses & significant weaknesses) in conjunction with technical (with meets, strengths, and deficiencies) in a combined technical/risk rating. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets, exceeds or does not meet the threshold performance or capability requirements. The risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. A strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. A weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness means a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of minimum PWS requirements (i.e. Blue “Outstanding” or, Purple “Good”). The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets/exceeds the Technical subfactor requirements.

Table M.4. Technical Risk Rating Method (Subfactor 4 ONLY) Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

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

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

NOTE: A separate Risk Rating will not be given for subfactor 4. This table only defines the risk levels to allow the color rating to be determined for this subfactor.

Table M.3 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method (Subfactor 4 ONLY)

Color Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of an unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

M.3.3 Evaluation of Technical Factor (Factor 1)

M.3.3.1 Subfactor 1 –Program Management Approach:

M.3.3.1.1 This standard is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach:

a) Describes an acceptable methodology for accomplishing work requirements identified in the PWS with the appropriate skills, equipment, and materials, in appropriate quantities and at the appropriate time.

b) Provides an acceptable, comprehensive Work Breakdown Structure, for the basic contract and all option periods. Work breakdown structure included details of onsite personnel by skill, skill level (i.e., Master, Journeyman or Apprentice), and numbers of full time equivalents (FTEs); a detailed description, with the proposed roles and responsibilities, certifications and license, to include cross-utilization and position qualifications and descriptions sufficient to meet projected workload and PWS requirements. Demonstrated that key positions will have the relevant experience and qualifications to effectively manage the services for which they will be responsible.

c) Provides an acceptable comprehensive plan for performance on the first day of contract operations which includes the following:

1. Demonstrated an acceptable comprehensive plan for the Changeover.

2. Demonstrated an acceptable comprehensive understating of mobilization schedule to be performed within the 60 Day mobilization period, and to be one hundred percent self-sufficient by contract performance start date.

3. Demonstrated an acceptable comprehensive plan to providing vehicles for all sections of the PWS with a list that described a vehicle composition that clearly outlines quantity and type of vehicles that clearly demonstrate understanding of vehicles needed to provide support for all PWS sections on first day of contract operation.

d) Provides an acceptable comprehensive understating within the outlined process to manage, update, configure governments designated legacy systems and replacement systems, in support of all PWS Sections.

M.3.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Civil Engineering Approach:

M.3.3.2.1 This standard is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach:

a) Describes an acceptable comprehensive approach to accomplish all the Base Operations

Support requirements for Civil Engineering (Operation & Maintenance PWS Section 11, Grounds Maintenance PWS Section 13, and Vertical Transportation Equipment PWS Section 15), to include all functions covered in All Services section of the PWS Section 2.

b) Describes an acceptable comprehensive approach for:

1. Preventive Maintenance.

2. Lifecycle Optimization.

3. Requirements & Optimization.

4. Work Priority 1 Emergency Services Mitigation Plan.

M.3.3.3 Subfactor 3 - Logistics Approach:

M.3.3.3.1 This standard is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach:

a) Demonstrates an acceptable comprehensive approach to accomplish all of the Base

Operations Support requirements for Supply and Transportation PWS Sections 23 and 25, to include all functions covered in All Services section of the PWS Section 2.

b) Provides an acceptable comprehensive plan to manage inbound and outbound shipping and receiving, to include outbound cargo, inbound cargo.

c) Provides an acceptable comprehensive approach for Quality Control Inspections – Residential and Warehouse.

d) Provides an acceptable comprehensive approach for base vehicle maintenance and ensure quality assurance programs for repairs of vehicles and equipment meets safety and serviceability standards.

e) Provides an acceptable comprehensive approach for Aircrew and Passenger Support.

f) Provides an acceptable comprehensive plan ensuring that Tool accountability by the

Service Provider (SP) shall comply with procedures in AFI 24-302 to maintain strict tool accountability and prevent potential Foreign Object Debris (FOD).

g) Provides an acceptable comprehensive approach for developing and managing a vehicle Minimum Essential Level (MEL) and Vehicle Priority Recall List (VPRL).

h) Provides an acceptable detailed list of vehicles and equipment that will be maintained and repaired during the life of the contract to support all sections of the PWS.

M.3.3.4 Subfactor 4 – Staffing Approach:

M.3.3.4.1 The standard is met when the Offeror proposed a detailed staffing approach which ensures that an acceptable level of trained, qualified and certified workforce is maintained to support all areas IAW the PWS. At a minimum:

a) An acceptable, comprehensive approach/strategy as to how personnel required to support all areas in the PWS will be maintained, and that all personnel are trained, certified and qualified to perform the position in support of the PWS from the first day of contract operations and over the period of performance (POP) of the entire contract. Which includes a process to provide qualified, stable workforce with minimal turnover of personnel and shall outline retention techniques, management of personnel, and rapid response to unexpected vacancies, and a comprehensive training plan ensuring all training and certifications are up to date IAW the PWS.

b) An acceptable, comprehensive plan to manage the impact of COVID to the mission and ensuring adequate staffing is available to support all areas of the PWS.

c) An acceptable, comprehensive approach to provide continuous coverage for mission critical one-deep positions and ensure fully trained and certified personnel will staff the “critical one-deep” positions at all times. Described any efforts for cross-utilization as well as contingency plans or other innovative solutions to maintain coverage for one-deep positions.

d) This standard is exceeded if the proposed innovative Staffing approach and/or Staffing innovation(s) provide a beneficial approach or benefit(s) above the stated PWS requirements. Whether the innovative Staffing approach and/or Staffing innovation(s) constitutes a beneficial approach and/or a benefit(s) to the Government is a subjective determination and solely within the Government’s discretion.

M.3.4 Evaluation of Past Performance (Factor 2)

M.3.4.1 Evaluation Process. Past performance will be evaluated as an indicator of an Offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully, and as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform successfully. This will be accomplished through a confidence assessment rating based on the Government assessing Offeror’s past performance history that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance of services that are like the solicitation requirements and the quality of the Offeror’s performance record. 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 available to the Government to include, but not limited to: the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Document Access (EDA), or other databases;

and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, COs, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

M.3.4.2 Recency is defined as at least 12 months of the effort’s period of performance must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The entire contract will be evaluated if there are 12-months of performance within the three (3) year recency window. Performance efforts that do not meet these criteria will not be evaluated for relevancy or performance quality.

M.3.4.3 Relevant performance measures the extent of similarity in scope, magnitude, and complexity of the Offeror’s past performance and the solicitation requirements. For each Past Performance effort, relevancy will be determined by the similarity to the scope, magnitude of effort and complexity of the Offerors’ performance. Magnitude similarity will be calculated as an estimated annual value (EAV) as part of the relevancy determination. Relevancy will be assigned a rating outlined in Section M, Table M.5, IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Performance efforts that are determined to be Not Relevant will not be further evaluated.

M.3.4.4 The Government will use the past performance relevancy ratings and descriptions as outlined in Table M.5 below:

Table M.5 – Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

M.3.4.5 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment may include adverse information. Adverse is defined as past performance that supports an unsatisfactory or marginal rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment. 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 resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. IAW FAR 15.306, Offerors may be given the opportunity to address adverse past performance information to which they have not had a prior opportunity to respond. Note: Self-identifying adverse information and corrective actions on PPI Worksheets constitutes an opportunity to respond.

M.3.4.6 Past Performance Evaluation Confidence Ratings: The Government will evaluate past performance and assign an overall confidence rating outlined in Table M.6 IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, based on an Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

Table M.6 - Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

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

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

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

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

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

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 “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” confidence rating may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

M.3.5 Evaluation of Price (Factor 3)

M.3.5.1 The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal (Volume III), as required by Section L, as described below. This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and price analysis will be performed to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable, and not unbalanced IAW

FAR 15.404-1.

M.3.5.2 Price Reasonableness: The price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by Section L, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW the proposal analysis techniques described at FAR 15.404-1 based on each Offeror’s proposed approach. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The price proposed shall correspond to the requirements of the PWS. If the proposal analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if after receipt of a proposal, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be requested to provide certified cost or pricing data IAW FAR 15.403 or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

M.3.5.3 Unbalanced Pricing: In addition, proposed unit prices will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Each Offeror’s price proposal should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate not unbalanced.

M.3.5.4 The sum of all FFP CLINs, for the Base Period and each Option Period including Incentive Options and Mobilization, will form the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). All CLIN pricing shall be provided in Section B of the solicitation. However, Not-to- Exceed/Estimated Cost Reimbursable CLINs X002, X003, X011, X012, X015, X025, X026, X027 and X028 will not be evaluated for award decision purposes and, therefore, are not included in the TEP.

M.3.5.5 Completeness: Any Offeror who fails to comply with the criteria outlined in Section L, paragraph 4.0 and its subparagraphs may be considered ineligible for award.

M.3.5.6 The contract will also include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract for a period not to exceed six (6) months beyond the date the Option to Extend Services is exercised. In the event the Government requires continued performance under the Option to Extend Services, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed (specifically for the period preceding the exercise of the Option to Extend Services) will be considered fair and reasonable as applied to the Option to Extend Services. The Option to Extend Services option rates will only be adjusted as the result of revisions to the applicable prevailing wage rates of the Department of Labor Wage Determination or Collective Bargaining Agreement.

M.3.5.7 The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, with the potential to extend the contract for a period up to seven years (base year plus four 1-year option periods and two possible 1-year incentive option periods). In the event the Government requires continued performance under the Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, the Government’s evaluation of price outlined herein will apply to all Options. The Option rates may only be adjusted as the result of revisions to the applicable prevailing wage rates of the Department of Labor Wage Determination or Collective Bargaining Agreement.

(End of Attachment)