Attach_8_PSI_Section_M_Draft.pdf

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology:

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of the funds.

In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous 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 that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in their first proposals, in the format and meeting the requirements specified in Section L of this solicitation. The Government may incorporate the successful Offeror’s proposal, or parts of the proposal, into the contract by reference. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business Participation, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

B. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each Offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Technical

Subfactor One: Technical Approach and Capability

Subfactor Two: Program Management

Factor II. Technical Risk

Factor III. Past Performance

Factor IV. Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance: The evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision are rated in order of relative importance, from most important to least important:

Factor I: Technical EQUAL TO Factor II. Technical Risk Factor III. Past Performance Factor IV. Cost/Price

Technical and Technical Risk is more important than past performance. Technical, Technical Risk, and Past Performance when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price. However, cost/price will contribute to the selection decision. (FAR 15.304(e) and DFARS 215.300 paragraph 2.3.2)

FA8232-23-R-3000

Attachment 8

DRAFT

II. Proposal Evaluation:

The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2. Clarifications: Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information). Offerors will be notified and given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror may not previously have had an opportunity to respond if the adverse information negatively affects the past performance rating. Exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will constitute clarifications, not discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (EN) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR), if any, will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal remains in the competitive range at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation by the Government.

3. Proposal Rejection: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program resources, schedule commitments, contract terms and/or conditions. Proposals may also be rejected due to unreasonably high or unbalanced pricing compared to Government estimates and competing offers to the extent that, when considered as a whole, including the evaluation of the technical proposal, the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity of the program. The Government may reject any proposal from this competition if determined to be grossly deficient prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors if an initial assessment shows the proposal fails to address requirements of the Request for Proposals (RFP), fails to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements of the RFP, or does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the RFP.

4. Correction Potential: The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential” of the proposal. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and represents a deficiency of a magnitude not considered correctible by conduct of meaningful discussion or is not correctable within a reasonable timeframe, the Offeror’s evaluation may be completed without discussions or the proposal may be eliminated from further evaluation, either as a result of initial evaluations, or after clarifications, communications, and/or meaningful discussions have failed to make the offer acceptable or higher in rating.

5. Site Visits: The Government may conduct site visits to gather and report information for evaluating the Offeror’s capability and the existence of facilities or infrastructure. This information will be used in conjunction with the evaluation criteria in review of proposal plans to verify that the offer complies with the Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors (ITOs) in Section L of the Request for Proposal (RFP), and that other terms and conditions are met. Information will also be used in judging the potential for correcting proposal deficiencies. The Government reserves the right to exclude a proposal as unacceptable and therefore un-awardable based on this facility review.

Information from the review may also be used in conjunction with other evaluations.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents, Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help Offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M

FA8232-23-R-3000

references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

C. Volume II, Factor I - Technical AND Factor II – Technical Risk

1. Evaluation Process: Each Offeror’s technical subfactors will be rated separately from the risk associated with their technical approach.

1.1. Technical Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor identified will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration for performance in excess of either the stated threshold or objective requirements.

1.1.1 Each subfactor will be evaluated by the Government and assigned a rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below in Table 1 below except for the requirements listed in Section L paragraph II.C.3.2.1 Small Business Participation and II.C.3.2.4 Contractor Technology Solution – these are evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS (COLOR RATING)

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

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

Green Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

1.2 Technical Risk Rating: Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the Offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Evaluators will make an independent judgment of the probability of success, the impact of failure, and the acceptability of the Offeror’s proposed risk mitigation solutions when assessing technical risk. A higher technical risk rating may be given during proposal evaluation to those Offerors who currently do not possess capacity and capability for the requirements of the PWS.

1.2.1 Each technical subfactor will be evaluated by the Government and assigned a Technical Risk rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below in Table 2.

FA8232-23-R-3000

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

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 difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have 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 causes an unacceptable risk of unsuccessful performance.

2. Evaluation: Each Offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the Offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the Offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the Offeror’s proposal, it indicates the Offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach

2.1 Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach and Capability: The Technical Approach and Capability subfactors will be based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s response to Section L paragraph II.C.3.1.

2.1.1 Sample Task #1 – R&R: The sample task evaluates the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its capability to perform Repair and Return IAW the R&R PWS and as required in Section L para II.C.3.1.1. The Offeror identifies sources of repair and provides proof of repair source qualification for each part listed on the Sample Repair List (Attachment L-8).

This subfactor is met when the Offeror describes a realistic and viable repair and return process including a flow diagram of the repair process with estimated timelines for each step with the exception of the time required for the actual repair.

2.1.2 Sample Task #2 – E&TS: This sample task evaluates the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its capability to perform Engineering and Technical Services (E&TS) IAW the E&TS PWS and as required in Section L para II.C.3.1.2.

This subfactor is met when the Offeror describes a thorough and realistic systems engineering process that identifies and describes the necessary steps to successfully complete a minor modification to design and implement a fictitious new mounting bracket.

2.1.3 Sample Task #3 – DMSMS: The sample task evaluates the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its capability to perform Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) work IAW the DMSMS PWS and as required by Section L para II.C.3.1.3.

This subfactor is met when the Offeror describes a thorough and realistic DMSMS process that demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of DMSMS and its ability to analyze and present courses of action to resolve DMSMS issues.

2.2 Subfactor Two – Program Management. The Program Management subfactors will be based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s response to Section L para II.C.3.2.

FA8232-23-R-3000

2.2.1 Small Business Participation: The Small Business element is considered to be acceptable when the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the Small Business Participation Requirements as defined in the Basic PWS para 5.2.5. The Small Business Participation Plan is not to be confused with Small Business Subcontracting Plan. All Offerors will be evaluated on their Small Business Participation Plan. The evaluation of the Small Business Participation Plan will also include the following:

a. The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms

2.2.2 Management and Organizational Structure: This subfactor is met when the Offeror's proposed organization chart and narrative fulfill all requirements as stated in Section L para II.C.3.2.2. Offeror’s response demonstrates:

a. Organizational structure detailing an integrated comprehensive leadership and technical team that includes joint venture partners, teammates and critical subcontractors (critical subcontractors defined in R&R PWS para 2.2.9). Clear lines of authority and paths of communication are sufficiently detailed. Teaming arrangements in place or proposed are detailed.

b. Procedures to proactively manage and monitor subcontractor, teaming partner, and associate contractor relationships are adequate and provide confidence in ability to ensure execution of all PWS requirements and meet cost/schedule/performance requirements.

c. Functions and processes critical to execution of performance and mitigation of risk are explained

d. Communication within the company and with the Government are detailed with appropriate responsiveness to government requests, effective problem resolution, and successful completion of all requirements

e. Program Manager (PM) and Contracting Officer positions demonstrate appropriate visibility to senior decision makers and sufficient authority, responsibility, and resources to execute the program. Key positions and their roles/responsibilities and authorities are identified and detailed on how they are considered essential to successful contract performance.

2.2.3 R&R Execution Plan: This subfactor is met when the Offeror's proposed execution plan demonstrates a comprehensive execution plan that includes all elements to receive and process orders no later than 30 calendar days after contract award. At a minimum the plan includes:

- Activities, and processes required to meet the 30 day requirement

- Standup of Contractor Technology Solution (CTS) (R&R PWS paras 3.5.9 & 3.5.10)

- Training for USG personnel of the CTS

- All key positions filled, and trained including the PM and Contracting Officer

2.2.4 Contractor Technology Solution: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides a detailed description including functions and capabilities of the Contractor Technology Solution (CTS), which provides logistics technology to streamline the repair and return process, allows for data retrieval and report generation, is accessible by the USG, maximizes activity transparency and communication between the USG and the Contractor.

2.2.5 Risk Management Plan: This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a Risk Management Plan that demonstrates a practical and reasonable approach to managing risk. The plan includes identification of the five (5) highest rated risks that impact schedule, performance, or cost control related to compliance with the requirements of the PWS and the conduct of the overall program. Of the five (5) risks identified, at least one (1) shall relate to loss of source of repair, source of repair quality, source of repair schedule, or compliance with requirement.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor The Government will seek past performance information to make an assessment of performance confidence for each Offeror as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures 3.1.3.3, focusing on performance that is recent and relevant to the technical subfactors. This review will result in a performance confidence assessment rating under Factor 3, Past Performance.

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement -- to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the Offeror itself, that will manage

FA8232-23-R-3000

shipping or receiving functions. In addition, the Offeror may have subcontractors that they consider critical to overall successful performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered.

For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the Offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the Offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

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

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the Offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume.

Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Key Personnel: For Offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the Offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the Offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the Offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, total quantity produced/repaired, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

-The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

FA8232-23-R-3000

-The Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total Quantity Produced/Repaired for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

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

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced/Repaired, and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope.

These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the Offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced/Repaired, Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4.1 below.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted contracts.

The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an Offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

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.

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to quantity produced, length of effort, dollar values, type, and complexity of data deliverables, etc. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Table 4: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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 is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractors, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the four (4) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the Offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the Offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL Offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the Offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the Offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

E. Volume IV, Cost/Price Proposal Factor The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Price Reasonableness, Realism (on cost-type CLIN portions of the volume as detailed below), Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

FA8232-23-R-3000

The TEP will be a consideration in the best value tradeoff award decision.

The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract award. However, the Administrative CLIN price, labor rates (both direct and indirect elements) from the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in Section L, Attachment 7 become contractually binding, as detailed below.

1. Price Reasonableness

1.1. The Government will evaluate the pricing elements within the TEP workbook and calculated TEP for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. Generally adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring price reasonableness.

1.2. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market.

1.3. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, information other than certified cost or pricing data will be required to support the proposed price.

2. Realism

2.1. The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offeror’s proposed labor rates for all cost CLINs other than travel. Proposal Analysis Techniques found in FAR 15.404-1 will be utilized. The cost CLINs are CLINs 5000 and 6000 proposed under tab “DMSMS/Engineering” of the TEP workbook.

2.2. Costs shall be reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

2.3. Evaluation will include assessment of the extent to which proposed labor rate costs are in line with historical data, market rates, Forward Price Rate Agreements (FPRAs)/Forward Price Rate Recommendations (FPRRs), etc., and the extent to which Task Order costs are sufficient for the work to be performed.

2.4. If the Government evaluates the Offeror’s probable cost as different from its proposed cost, the probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2).

2.5. Offerors are reminded that unrealistically low rates may result in an Offeror’s proposal being removed from consideration of an award.

3. Balance

3.1. The Government will evaluate the balance of each Offeror’s proposed Administrative CLIN prices and labor rates.

3.2. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1.

3.3. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced CLIN pricing or labor rates.

3.4. Offers determined by the Government to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance is determined by the Government to pose an unacceptable risk.

4. TEP

4.1. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the following:

4.1.1. Administrative Price Per Repair (FFP) x Notional Number of Repairs for overall period of performance.

4.1.2. DMSMS/Engineering Labor Rates (CPFF) x Notional Number of Hours per labor category.

FA8232-23-R-3000

NOTE: CRNF CLINs for Repair (CLIN 4000) and Travel (CLIN 2000) will not be proposed/included in the TEP but will be proposed and negotiated as needed at the order level.

4.2. The Government will use the TEP workbook to compute the TEP. All elements above will include the corresponding proposed fixed/fee.

4.3. The Government will apply pre-determined notional elements to the proposed Administrative Price and DMSMS/Engineering Labor Rates. The notional elements will be established by the Government prior to RFP release and applied the same for all Offerors. These multipliers will not be disclosed to the Offerors.

5. Labor Category Mapping

5.1. The Government will evaluate Attachment L-7, Labor Category Mapping, provided by the Offeror, to ensure all Offeror labor categories are mapped to the Government’s labor categories. This will be used to assist in understanding of the Offeror’s proposed labor rates.