Attach 5 - DRAFT Section M.pdf

DRAFT

Intelligence Support Services – Joint III H92402-24-R-0001

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

M.1.1 Best Value Introduction: This section outlines the criteria the Government will use to evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and proposal for the Intelligence Support Services – Joint III IDIQ. The Government will compare each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. This is a competitive best value trade-off source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215 and Special Operations Federal Acquisition Supplement 5615.

M.1.2 Evaluation Ratings Assignment: The Government will evaluate all proposals received against Volume 1 Qualifying Criteria, on a Pass or Fail basis. For Volume 2, Transition Plan & Volume 3, Management, the Government will use the combined technical (color)/risk rating technique for each factor individually. Volume 4, Past and Present Performance, will be assigned a Confidence Rating, and Volume 5, Price/Cost, will not be given a color rating but will be assigned a Total Evaluated Price (TEP).”

Factors are in the following descending order of importance:

Factor 1 – Transition Plan Factor 2 – Management Factor 3 – Past and Present Performance Factor 4 - Price/Cost

Factor 1 and 2, when combined, are “significantly more important” than Factor 3. All evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price. The Government is willing to award to a higher priced offeror that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to this solicitation. As proposals approach equality across all Factors, the Price/Cost area plays a more important role in the Best Value Award Decision.

Evaluation Item Factor Evaluation Qualifying Criteria

Pass/Fail

Transition Plan Factor 1 Combined Technical/Risk Management Factor 2 Combined Technical/Risk Management Plan Element 1 Key Personnel Element 2 Cyber Security Element 3 Past and Present Performance Factor 3 Confidence Rating Price Factor 4 Total Evaluated Price (All

Years)

M.1.2.1 Transition and Management, Factor 2 & 3 Evaluation Methods. While the Government will conduct evaluations at the element level, elements will not be assigned a color/risk rating. Therefore, there will not be a roll-up of elements to create an overall rating for each Factor. Color/risk rating will occur at the Factor level only.

Furthermore, there will not be a roll-up of all Factors to create an overall proposal color/risk rating. Factors 1 and 2 will receive separate color/ risk ratings and stand independently.

Factors 2 and 3 will be evaluated using the Combined Technical/Risk Rating descriptions in Table 1.

Technical Risk definitions referenced in Table 1 are defined in Table 2.

The Technical Evaluation terms referenced in Table 1 are defined in Table 3.

SECTION M - Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant 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.

SECTION M-Table 2. Technical Risk Definitions Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that cause an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

SECTION M-Table 3. Technical Rating Evaluation Terms Term Definition Significant Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.1.3 Basis of Award: Award will be made to the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described above, including a tradeoff process. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.

M.1.4 Number of Contractors to be Selected: The Government anticipates selecting one contractor for the Intelligence Support Services—Joint III IDIQ award. The Government reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to award no, one, or multiple awardees, depending on the quality of the proposals, the availability of funding, program risks, the continued existence of the requirement and other Government needs.

M.1.5 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is assessed to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically low in price when assessed according to Proposal Analysis Techniques prescribed at FAR 15.404-1, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect lack of competence, failure to comprehend the complexity of the program, or presents an unacceptable risk of performance.

M.1.5.1 Rejection of Incomplete Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that fails to provide all the required information listed in the solicitation.

M.1.6 Proposal Evaluation: 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 Volumes or Factors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exceptions to the solicitation's terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.

M.1.7 Competitive Range Determination: In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), the Government may (but is not obligated to) make a competitive range determination. If made, the determination will be based on an initial evaluation of the Factors listed in M.1.2.1. The competitive range will include only those proposals most highly rated after initial evaluation and may further be limited for efficiency purposes, if it is deemed to be in the Government’s best interest.

M.1.7.1 The Government will base the initial evaluation of proposals and the initial determination of the competitive range upon a review of the submitted proposals, and consider any information exchanged during communications as defined in FAR 15.306 if necessary. The Government will discontinue evaluation of any proposal which is not considered to be in the competitive range after initial evaluations. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

The Government reserves the right in its sole discretion to award without discussions if the evaluation shows that it is in the Government’s best interest. If an award without discussions decision is made by the SSA, a competitive range will not be established, discussions will not be conducted, nor will Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) be requested. For this reason, it is highly encouraged that an Offeror submits its best offer initially to the Government in response to the proposal (vice waiting for FPRs).

M.1.8 Discussions: When warranted, the Government intends to engage in discussions (written and/or oral) with all Offerors within the competitive range. The intent of these discussions is to obtain the best value based upon the requirements and evaluation Factors set forth in Section M. The scope and extent of discussions are at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, and the Contracting Officer will tailor discussions to each Offeror’s proposal. The

SECTION M-Table 3. Technical Rating Evaluation Terms Term Definition Deficiency

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.

Government may remove an Offeror from the competitive range at any point during discussions, whether all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, if the Offeror is no longer considered to be one of the most highly rated. When the Government concludes discussions, it will give all Offerors within the competitive range the opportunity to submit a final revised proposal by the date and time identified by the Contracting Officer.

M.1.9 Final Proposal Revisions: If discussions are conducted (see M.1.8. above), Final Proposal Revisions(FPR) will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP. Offerors are advised that unsupported FPR responses may lower the overall proposal evaluation. Offerors are further advised that any information generated in the course of discussions must be incorporated into the FPR; the Government will only consider the Offeror’s FPR for final evaluation purposes.

M.1.10 Offer Acceptance: A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer whether there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received from the Offeror before award.

M.2 VOLUME 1 – QUALIFYING CRITERIA.

Information submitted for the qualifying criteria in accordance with Section L.2 will be evaluated to determine if the proposal meets the information listed in the subsections below to “pass.” If the Offeror fails any of the qualifying criteria, they will “fail” to qualify and in accordance with M.1.6 be removed from the competition. The Offerors will be assessed as passed if the minimum requirements defined below have been met:

M.2.1 Contract Forms and Certifications: To receive a Pass rating, the Offeror shall provide:

a. Section 1 – Proposal cover letter or proposal cover page (include names, office phone and facsimile numbers, if applicable, cell phone numbers, and e-mail addresses for proposal POCs, and any actual or potential OCIs).

b. Section 2 – A conformed contract copy from this RFP with digital signature of an official authorized to contractually bind the Offeror in Block 17 of the SF 33. The Offeror must complete the following sections within the RFP for these criteria:

Solicitation, Offer and Award (Standard Form 33), Blocks 12-18 All Section K, Representations, Certifications, and Disclosures All amendments posted to SAM.gov

M.2.2 Facility Clearance. To receive a Pass rating, the Offeror or members of a JV shall provide proof of final cleared TOP SECRET Facility as accredited by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). The Offeror provides proof of SECRET storage of information. The Offeror meets all the requirements of the DD254 showing proof of clearance, storage, etc.

M.2.3 SDVOSB Registration/SBA All-Small Program/Joint Venture Agreement/Joint Venture Agreement. To receive a Pass rating the Prime Offeror must be registered as a Service-Connected Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business under NAICS 541990 on the System for Award Management website. The final decision regarding any Offerors' SDVOSB status shall reside jointly with the Veterans’ Administration and the Small Business Administration. For Offeror’s using the SBA All-Small Program, the Prime Offeror must submit SBA approval of the Mentor-Protégé Agreement with their proposal. All Joint Ventures must provide a signed copy of their agreement with proposal submission.

M.2.4 Acceptable Accounting System. To receive a Pass rating the Prime Offeror must have an approved accounting system at time of proposal submission or provide, as part of the proposal, enough information for the Contracting Officer to determine that the Prime Vendor has an acceptable accounting system in accordance with DFARS 252.242-7006(c).

M.2.5 Cybersecurity Compliance. To receive a Pass rating the Offeror and its subcontractors must submit a NIST Cyber Assessment Tool Certification that demonstrates a full passing cybersecurity rating of 110 controls in accordance with NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 guidelines.

M.2.6 Defense Base Act Coverage. To receive a Pass rating the Offeror provided a quote from a DBA Insurance Provider based on the FTE identified in the SOW for operations in Iraq, demonstrating the ability to secure coverage despite it being a suboptimal location. The prospective locations for the project include declared theaters of active armed conflict, high Department of State hardship, and hazardous duty areas. Expected locations will be communicated to potential Offerors at competitive range.

M.3 VOLUME 3 – FACTOR 1 – TRANSITION PLAN.

M.3.1 Transition Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s transition plan demonstrates the ability to successfully execute a contract phase-in while minimizing impacts. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s plan, to include the timeline, demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements for transition, consideration of incumbent workforce capture, capacity of organic workforce, and identification of appropriate risk mitigation strategies. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror is providing the support/services during the Transition versus what subcontractors are providing. The Government will determine whether the proposal meets the requirements defined in section L.3 and to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements per the definitions contained within Table 1. The Offeror’s Transition plan will become part of any resultant contract.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s transition plan for incumbent capture, organic workforce, or new hires is realistic and feasible. A proposal that demonstrates how the Offeror expects to capture a large incumbent workforce and/or how its organic workforce is sufficient enough for a smooth transition represents, to the Government, a lower risk to transition than a proposal that primarily relies on new hires.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s phase-in/transition management, processes, and procedures, and risk mitigation strategies leading to assumption of full contractual responsibility no later than 90 days after contract award. Proposals that understand the Government’s requirements and demonstrate and support a realistic, feasible, integrated transition schedule to meet the full FTE requirement represent a low risk to contract performance and a more favorable rating may result. Proposals that meet a transition plan of less than 90 days may receive a more favorable rating.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s processes, procedures, and management approach to accomplish a timely transition of personnel into both CONUS and OCONUS locations reduces risk to transition.

M.4 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT

M.4.1 Factor 2 Element 1 – Management Plan. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s Management Plan demonstrates well defined responsibilities and sound business management practices and processes to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to recruiting and retaining personnel. The Government will further evaluate the extent to which the plan demonstrates an understanding of how to successfully turnover personnel on a rotational basis (e.g., termination, sickness, retirement), during performance of the contract while minimizing degradation in services and maintaining an 80% fill rate. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror has infrastructure, and established procedures to insert, withdraw and support/manage CONUS and OCONUS deployed employees. The Government will evaluate the management approach for managing teaming partners and/or subcontracts and/or subcontracts to include determining what support/services the prime is providing versus what subcontractors are providing. A feasible, realistic Management Plan that mitigates disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, and/or the need for increased Government oversight represents a low risk to contract performance. The Offeror’s Management Plan may be incorporated into any resultant contract.

M.4.2 Element 2: Key Personnel For each proposed candidate, the Offeror shall include:

M.4.2.1 Resumes are required to be submitted for all Key Personnel, that are not to exceed 2 pages for each Key Personnel. Resumes do not count towards page limitations for this volume.

M.4.2.2 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Transition Manager’s resume and underlying experience demonstrates possession of the minimum qualifications in accordance with Attachment J-1, Statement of Work. The Government will further consider whether, and to what extent, the Transition Manager’s resume and underlying experience exceeds those minimum qualifications.

M.4.2.3 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Program Manager’s resume and underlying experience demonstrates possession of the minimum qualifications in accordance with Attachment J-1, Statement of Work. The Government will further consider whether, and to what extent, the Program Manager’s resume and underlying experience exceeds those minimum qualifications.

M.4.2.4 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Deputy Program Manager’s resume and underlying experience demonstrates possession of the minimum qualifications in accordance with Attachment J-1, Statement of Work. The Government will further consider whether, and to what extent, the Deputy Program Manager’s resume and underlying experience exceeds those minimum qualifications.

M.4.3 Element 3: System Security Plan. Offerors that exhibit a more fully integrated System Security Plan (SSP) (a plan that implements a greater number of safeguards with a full-compliance score of 110), as described in the NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Methodology, represents a lower risk to the Government, and will potentially be rated more favorably. Offerors who exhibit a SSP - that lacks compliance with multiple elements of the NIST SP 800-171 standards, represents risk to the Government, and may result be assigned risk and rated less favorably.

M.5 -- VOLUME 4 – FACTOR 3 -- PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s (to include proposed subcontractor(s)) demonstrated record of performance in providing services that meet users’ needs. Past Performance evaluation will focus on how well the Offeror performed or is performing on other recent and relevant efforts. For proposed subcontractor(s), evaluation will focus solely on work that the subcontractor is proposed to perform under this contract.

M.5.1 The Government will conduct a review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the current requirement utilizing the recency and relevancy criteria outlined in Section L. All efforts meeting the recency criteria will be assessed for relevancy. For those efforts determined Somewhat Relevant or higher, a performance evaluation will be conducted based on the data gathered by both interviews with those references provided in the Offeror’s Past/Present Performance Information Sheets, and as available through the Contract Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS). The Government is not limited to these resources. A performance rating will be established for each effort for which a performance evaluation is conducted utilizing the same performance rating definitions contained within the CPARS.

M.5.2 Once all data has been gathered, the Government will assign a confidence rating considering the Offeror’s team’s overall recent/relevant performance record. The confidence ratings with definitions that will be utilized are contained within Table 4 below.

SECTION M – Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessments

M.5.3 The assessment will be used to determine the probability of successful accomplishment of this effort. The Government’s assessment will focus on the Past Performance of the Offeror and its proposed sub-contractors as it relates to the solicitation requirements such as cost, schedule, and performance (to specifically include previous contract fill rates).

M.5.4 The Offeror’s record of activity identifying potential problems, as well as their ability to resolve actual problems with minimal impact of contract performance; the Offeror’s adherence to contract schedules, including the administration aspects of performance, the Offeror’s history of reasonableness and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to deliver services without claims or contract adjustments. In short, the evaluation will focus on the Offeror’s ability to deliver quality services relative to this solicitation, on time, on budget, and at a reasonable cost.

M.5.4.1 Past Performance evaluation will consider Past Performance information regarding predecessor companies and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

M.5.4.2 Past Performance information will be obtained through Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers, or other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. Offerors should note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources however the Government is not limited to these resources.

M.5.4.3 Past Performance Rating Methodology - A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any aspect may result in an overall low confidence rating. Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include all (up to the limit of five references) relevant past efforts regardless of perceived evaluation rating. Each contract submitted by the Offeror to substantiate Past Performance will be rated for relevancy by the Government and a rating of Highly Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant will be assigned (See Attachment J-4b: PP Matrix). This relevancy rating will be used when considering how much weight to ascribe to each contract in determining the overall confidence rating. Contract Performance assessments will be made based upon the Offeror’s demonstrated performance in the assessed Volumes of evaluation.

SECTION M - Table 4. Past 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.

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

M.6 VOLUME 5 – FACTOR 4 – PRICE. Price will be evaluated using price analysis techniques in order to determine that it is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404. Price proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, price realism, cost realism for the cost reimbursable CLINS, unbalanced pricing, completeness, a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistency with the Offeror’s technical proposal. Price will not receive a color rating or score but will receive a TEP (Total Evaluated Price), which will be used for evaluation purposes only.

IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) the Government may require submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of fair and reasonable price. Inconsistencies between the proposed Cost/Price Volume and Technical Volume, unbalanced pricing, or other pricing anomalies may be assessed as proposal risk under the Technical Factors.

M.6.1 Attachment J-3 (Pricing Matrix) The Government will confirm all yellow highlighted fields on all tabs of Attachment J-3, have been completed and all formulas within the worksheets are accurate. All proposals will be evaluated to ensure they are IAW Section L of this document. Offerors are cautioned that the accuracy of formulas and calculations are the responsibility of the Offeror.

M.6.2 Price Analysis. Price analysis will be performed for the proposed fixed price labor hour CLINs. The total price for Labor CLIN 0001 will be calculated by multiplying the Offeror’s proposed fully burden labor rates by the hours for each labor category by the number of FTEs to arrive at a total Labor price for each Task Order for the entire contract period of performance.

M.6.3 Cost Analysis. ODC Cost CLIN 0002 will be based on the Government provided ODC estimate base amount for OCONUS uplifts and DBA Insurance amount within Attachment J-3, ODC s plus applicable indirect rates.

Travel Cost CLIN 0003 will be based on the Government provided travel estimate base amount within Attachment J-3 Travel. The Government will confirm that plug numbers have not been adjusted and the Offeror has applied indirect rates in accordance with their disclosed accounting practice.

The Government shall compute a Probable Cost (PC) and conduct cost realism on the ODC and Travel CLIN for the indirect rates/costs proposed only.

M.6.4 Indirect Rates/Costs. If the Offeror has added indirect rates and/or factors to the proposed ODC amounts, the Government will confirm that the Offeror has provided the basis for those rates and factors. If the rates and factors are based on a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) or any other agreement with the Government, the Government will confirm that the Offeror has provided a copy of that agreement(s). If the rates and factors are based on other than an FPRA, the Government may evaluate the Offeror’s four years of historical records and current budgetary data for the contract period of performance to determine that the proposed rates and/or factors are fair and reasonable. Historical data should include detail pool and base costs for projected annual rates and factors compared with actual year end pool and base costs experienced for the prior four years.

M.6.5 Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate for reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404-1 Proposal Analysis Techniques. A cost or price is considered reasonable if it does not exceed what would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

M.6.6 Total Evaluated Price. The Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price, Tab 2 in Attachment J-3, Pricing Matrix for an award decision. The total evaluated price is the sum of the four (4) awardable Task Orders plus the one (1) OCONUS Sample Task Order.

M.6.7 Completeness Realism, and Reasonableness: The proposal is the Offeror’s price to perform the work described in this solicitation and will be used in the analysis of the completeness, price realism, cost realism for the cost reimbursable CLINS, and reasonableness of the proposal (per FAR 15.404-1). If the Offeror’s fails to complete the pricing template or did not follow instructions the Offeror may be eliminated from the competition without further discussions. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price should be explained in the price volume. All labor and burden rates proposed must be fully substantiated.

Inconsistences between technical and price, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and/or its ability to perform the required services.

Offerors are encouraged to provide sufficient detail for the Government to determine fair and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). Unrealistically low estimates may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the grounds that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or that it has made an unrealistic proposal. The burden of proof of credibility rests with the Offeror, and the numbers must be verifiable. If the Government determines an Offeror’s price to be inexplicably low, that Offeror may be eliminated from the competition without further discussion.