Attachment 006 - Sections M.docx

Section M: Government Evaluation M.1 Basis for Award The Government intends to award a single Firm-Fixed-Price “C” type contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, considering the evaluation factors outlined below. This will be a trade-off process in accordance with FAR Part 15. Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor 2. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

The following factors will be used to evaluate proposals:

· Factor 1: Program Management Plan – Oral Presentation

· Factor 2: Past Performance – Oral Presentation

· Factor 3: Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

M.2 SELECTION PROCESS

A single award will be made utilizing subjective trade-off methodology. The award decision will be based on which proposal is most advantageous or best interest to the Government and will be based on an assessment of proposals against the selection criteria of the solicitation.

Offerors are cautioned that award may be made to other than the highest-technically-rated Offeror, or other than lowest-priced Offeror if the Government determines that paying a price premium is warranted.

To be eligible to receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factor 1 (Program Management). An evaluation rating of “Unacceptable” or “Marginal” for the identified Factor will cause the entire proposal to be ineligible for award.

M.2.1 General Selection Information

a. Failure of an Offeror to submit the proposal IAW the date and time deadlines or in the manner specified in the solicitation shall result in proposal rejection; the Contracting Officer will notify an Offeror if the proposal is rejected IAW FAR 15.503(a)(1). All clauses and provisions included in this solicitation are applicable and must be considered in the proposal submission.

b. The Government intends to strictly enforce ALL the solicitation/proposal submission requirements outlined in Section L. Failure to comply with the solicitation requirements may result in an Offeror’s proposal being rejected and not being evaluated; the Contracting Officer will notify an Offeror if the proposal is rejected. All proposal information is subject to verification by the Government. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001. Exceptions to the terms, conditions, and/or provisions of this solicitation or assumptions within the proposal will result in a determination that an Offeror is ineligible to be considered for award.

c. Noncompliance with Terms of Solicitation - The Government may determine an Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award if the Offeror fails to comply with the instructions set forth in L.2, L.3 and related Subsections; additionally, any inconsistencies, generalizations, ambiguities or mere reiteration of the Government’s requirements will be evaluated less favorably and may constitute the proposal being ineligible for award.

d. Offerors are cautioned that while the Government will not evaluate every PWS (Attachment 0001 PWS Dated 18 June 2026) requirement for the purposes of the source selection evaluation, the awardee will be required to comply with the PWS requirements during contract performance. The Government may determine, at its discretion, that an Offeror's proposal is unacceptable if the proposal indicates that it cannot or will not meet any of the PWS requirements. Unacceptable and/or noncompliant proposals may be rejected; the Contracting Officer will notify an Offeror if the proposal is rejected.

e. The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation. Such information, referred to as extrinsic information, is obtained from sources outside the proposal. Sources of extrinsic information may include DCAA, DCMA, and Government databases (for example, IAW PGI 215.404-2, the Government may request audit assistance from DCAA, if necessary).

f. Inconsistencies. The price proposal must be consistent with the Offeror's non-price factor proposal. Unexplained inconsistencies between the Offeror's price and non-price factor proposals which raise questions about the terms of any resulting contract may be assessed as proposal risk and could be considered a flaw under the applicable non-price factor. The purpose of the identification of inconsistencies is to ensure that the Offeror and the Government have a meeting of the minds on the Offeror’s intended proposal terms. This review does not refer to and is not related to “unrealistically low” prices, and this language should not be read as though the Government intends to evaluate the Total Evaluated Price for realism.

M.2.2 Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in Proposal Evaluation

M.2.2.1 Use of AI tools in Support of Evaluations: The Government may employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of offeror proposals. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with request for contract proposal / solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk. It will not be used for scoring, generating adjectival ratings, or making source selection decisions or replace the independent assessment of source selection personnel.

M.2.2.2 Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgements, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, best value determinations, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed Government personnel. The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any AI tool.

M.2.2.3 Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: The AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. The AI tool will be an output-only system. Any generated report data is not saved. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place. Any AI platform or tool used by the Government adheres to the requirements of Department of War (DoW) cybersecurity frameworks at Impact Level 5 (IL5) or higher to safeguard contractor bid, proposal, and proprietary data and prohibits the use of contractor data for training external or commercial AI models.

M.3 Evaluation Method.

M.3.1 Volume 1: Factor 1 - Program Management Plan The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Oral Presentation to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements, the comprehensiveness, feasibility and soundness of the offeror’s approach to satisfy TRIOSS II Program’s elements identified in Section L.3.1.1 as it translates to the level of risk associated with its ability to successfully perform the PWS requirements. Even though the oral presentation is broken down into elements, the Government will be evaluating Factor 1 as one factor, the Program Management Plan. Offeror’s must receive an “ACCEPTABLE” rating in Volume I to be considered eligible for award.

M.3.1.1 Factor 1 – Program Management Plan The evaluation will assess the degree to which the Offeror’s presented approach demonstrates a comprehensive and low-risk Program Management Plan. The Government’s evaluation will focus on the following five elements:

1. Phase-In Plan: The Government will evaluate the adequacy and realism of the Offeror's detailed plan for the 90-day phase-in period. This includes assessing the proposed methodology, schedule, and key milestones to ensure the seamless assumption of full operational capability while minimizing the risk of service degradation.

2. Workforce Management and Staffing: The Government will evaluate the adequacy and realism of the Offeror’s approach for providing and managing qualified personnel and management oversight across all geographically dispersed sites listed in PWS 3.0.4 to ensure uninterrupted mission support. Specifically, the evaluation will assess:

· The viability of the Offeror's plan to achieve 100% staffing of the Minimum Mandatory Staffing Baseline (MMSB) of 110 FTEs (PWS 3.0.4) by the conclusion of the 90-day phase-in period.

· The soundness of the Offeror's recruiting, retention, and vacancy mitigation pipeline to rapidly restore the MMSB when a vacancy occurrs.

· Procedures for obtaining and ensuring all personnel meet and maintain the qualification and certification requirements outlined in PWS Section 3.19 and Appendix A.

· The process for immediate vacancy notification to the KO and COR as required by Section H.1.2 and PWS 3.0.6.

3. Program Health Tracking: The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed metrics, Quality Control Plan (QCP), and management processes and tools used to track, assess, and report program health and performance. This includes the thoroughness of the detailed process for submitting the Monthly Staffing Report (MSR) with the monthly invoice in accordance with Section H.1.5.

4. Employee Issue Resolution: The Government will evaluate the soundness and promptness of the Offeror's procedures to effectively handle employee problems and misconduct at any performance location. The evaluation will focus on the thoroughness of the Offeror's plan to enforce Army policies, specifically the SHARP program (PWS 3.13.6), and adhere to the immediate reporting requirements for adverse actions (PWS 3.16.2).

5. Continuity of Operations and Personnel Absences: The Government will evaluate the viability and operational readiness of the Offeror’s strategy for covering single or multiple Short-Term Absences at any site to ensure that training throughput is continuously maintained without interruption (PWS 3.0.8.2).

M.3.1.2 The Government intends to utilize the following streamlined combined technical/risk rating methodology in conjunction with Factor 1 (Program Management)

M.3.1.3 Key Evaluation Definitions. These key evaluation definitions apply for the evaluation of Factor 1.

Key Evaluation Definitions

M.3.1.4 The following combined adjectival ratings will be used in the evaluation of Factor 1:

M.3.2 Volume II: Factor 2 - Past Performance The Government will evaluate the Offeror's 5-page PowerPoint and 15-minute Past Performance presentation to assess the Level of Confidence in the Offeror's ability to successfully perform the required effort. The evaluation will be based on verifying baseline criteria, followed by an assessment of two primary aspects: Relevance and Quality.

M.3.2.1. Baseline Criteria (Recency, Quantity, and Role) Before assessing Relevance and Quality, the Government will verify that the Offeror’s submission meets the instructed baseline criteria:

· Recency: The Government will verify that all presented experience was performed within the last three (3) years from the date of solicitation release.

· Quantity and Role: The Government will verify that the Offeror presented a minimum of three (3) distinct past performance examples, and that the Offeror served as the Prime Contractor on at least two (2) of the three (3) presented examples.

(Note: Failure to meet these baseline criteria may negatively impact the Offeror's Relevance and Quality assessments and the resulting Performance Confidence rating).

M.3.2.2. Relevance The Government will evaluate how closely the presented past performance aligns with the TRIOSS II program's requirements. The Government will assess the degree to which the Offeror's examples demonstrate relevant experience in:

· Providing medical training and instruction services.

· Managing geographically dispersed teams, including CONUS locations.

· Supporting DoD or other government medical communities.

· Successfully managing Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts with mandatory staffing requirements.

M.3.2.3. Quality The Government will evaluate the Offeror's demonstrated success in executing the relevant contracts. The evaluation will focus on the Offeror's proven capability to deliver services of a similar size, scope, and complexity to the TRIOSS II Program. Particular emphasis will be placed on the Offeror's ability to consistently meet and maintain mandatory staffing baselines in an FFP environment without degradation of service quality or schedule delays. This quality assessment will be based on the presentation and may be verified via external sources (e.g., CPARS).

Performance Confidence Assessment Based on the combined assessment of Recency, Relevance, and Quality demonstrated during the presentation (and may be verified via CPARS), the Government will assign one of the following Performance Confidence Assessment ratings:

M.3.3 Volume III - Total Evaluated Proposed Price (TEP) Best Value Trade-Off: Contract award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government, utilizing FAR Part 15 Best Value Trade-Off source selection procedures. In making the award decision, non-cost/price technical and management factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.

M.3.3.1 Evaluation Framework: The Government will evaluate the Cost/Price Proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The evaluation will assess:

· Compliance and Completeness: Adherence to all proposal preparation instructions in Section L.3.0;

· Price Reasonableness: Determination that proposed prices are not excessive or unreasonable;

· Cost Realism: Assessment that proposed costs reflect an accurate understanding of the PWS requirements and do not introduce severe operational or performance risks.

M.3.3.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will evaluate each Offeror's cost and pricing based on the Base year price and the overall Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government will also be looking for the Offeror to be in compliance with instructions in Section L, PWS, and Section H.

· Calculation Methodology: The TEP is mathematically defined as the sum of the total proposed prices for CLIN X001 (TRIOSS Services - FFP) across the Base Year and all four Option Years, plus the Government-specified plug number of $12,000.00 for CLIN X002 (Mission Travel - Cost) across all five years:

· Evaluation of Options: In accordance with FAR 52.217-5 (Evaluation of Options), evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise any option year. While the Government will evaluate pricing associated with the six-month extension of services available under FAR 52.217-8 to ensure price reasonableness, such pricing will be excluded from the offeror's Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

M.3.3.3 Cost/Price Evaluation Criteria

The Government will conduct a detailed evaluation of Volume III based on the following evaluation subfactors:

M.3.3.4 Compliance and Proposal Completeness

The Government will perform an initial review to confirm that the Offeror's proposal is complete and fully compliant with Section L.3.0. Proposals will be reviewed against the following mandatory criteria:

· MMSB Baseline Compliance: The proposal must account for no less than exactly 110 FTEs distributed across the 25 specific geographic sites and labor disciplines (EMT and Paramedic) defined in PWS Section 3.0.4, calculated strictly at 1,992 productive hours per FTE per year. Proposals modifying baseline FTEs or hours will be considered non-compliant.

· Travel Plug Integrity: CLIN X002 must be proposed exactly at the Government plug value of $12,000.00 per year. Proposing any other value, adding indirect markups, or adding fee will result in immediate disqualification of the proposal.

· Workbook Mathematical Integrity: All Excel formulas must be active and unlocked. Overwritten values, broken formulas, or unlinked sheets may cause the proposal to be rated mathematically unverified and removed from the competition.

· Rate Locking Compliance: The Government will verify that:

· The percentage rates for Overhead, G&A, and Profit/Fee proposed in the Base Year are identical and constant across Option Years 1 through 4;

· The Fringe Benefits rate is held constant across all Option Years, unless the Offeror has met the specific exception by substantiating an employer contribution increase mandated by a CBA;

· Direct labor rates for Non-SCA/Non-CBA positions are proposed for the Base Year and each Option Year and are fixed for their respective performance periods.

· The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed DBA insurance costs submitted in TAB 1-6, Part 2 of the TRIOSS Pricing Workbook as part of the overall Price/Cost evaluation. The evaluation will assess compliance, reasonableness, and integration into the contract pricing structure. The Government will verify that proposed premium rates reflect current DOL-authorized carrier pricing. Unsubstantiated or abnormal rates will be evaluated as potential performance risk. Omission of required DBA costs, failure to provide supporting carrier documentation or applying fees to cost may render the proposal non-compliant, resulting in removal from competitive consideration.

· Failure to comply with any of these mandatory structural instructions may result in the proposal being rejected as non-responsive and ineligible for award.

M.3.3.5 Price Reasonableness (FAR 15.404-1(b))

The Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), individual CLIN prices, and fully burdened labor rates for price reasonableness. The proposed price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive enterprise.

· Price analysis techniques utilized by the Government may include:

· Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation;

· Comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE);

· Comparison with historical pricing paid for the same or similar services under the predecessor TRIOSS contract;

· Comparison of proposed labor rates against published commercial benchmarks and regional wage indices.

· Binding CBA agreements with pricing arrangements already in place.

· Unreasonably high pricing may render a proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.3.3.6 Cost Realism Analysis (FAR 15.404-1(d))

Although CLIN X001 is a Firm-Fixed-Price contract line item, the Government will perform a Cost Realism Analysis on the proposed pricing to assess:

· Whether the proposed labor rates and operational costs are realistic for the work to be performed;

· Whether the proposal reflects a clear operational understanding of the PWS requirements (including shift coverage, severe local labor market conditions, and required credentialing); and

· Whether the proposed pricing indicates an unacceptable risk of poor performance, high employee turnover, inability to fill vacancies within the 14-day grace period, or contractor default.

M.3.3.7 Realism Findings:

· If an Offeror proposes direct labor rates below prevailing regional market rates for qualified Paramedics and EMTs and does not submit a narrative proving how their unique management, recruiting, or retention model supports lower pricing without risk, or fails to realistically budget for fringe benefits and required personnel clearances/recertifications, the Government will treat this as an indicator of proposal risk and a lack of understanding under the PWS requirements and Program Management Plan Evaluation Factor.

· No Upward Adjustment to FFP: Because CLIN X001 is Firm-Fixed-Price, the Government will not formally adjust the Offeror's proposed contract price upward for evaluation purposes. Instead, the results of the cost realism analysis will be documented and directly factored into the Best Value Trade-Off determination as a measure of performance and cost risk. Unrealistically low prices may lead to the proposal being rated Unacceptable under the Non-Price factors or rejected entirely.

· Offeror will be held to the labor prices proposed and they will become part of the contract, unless there is an adjustment made due to new SCA rates or CBA negotiations.

M.3.3.8 Labor Rate Substantiation and Statutory Compliance

The Government will verify the legal validity and empirical foundation of all proposed direct labor rates:

· CBA Sites: The Government will verify that proposed direct labor rates, health and welfare rates, and pension contributions strictly match the rates published in the governing CBAs. For agreements with mid-year escalations, the Government will verify that the calculation of split hours at the respective rates equals 1,992 annual productive hours. For expiring agreements without successors, the Government will verify that the last known rate is maintained without escalation to the end of the contract.

· SCA Sites: The Government will confirm that all proposed direct wages and fringe rates meet or exceed the mandatory minimums established in the governing Department of Labor Wage Determinations. Proposals presenting wage rates below SCA minimums are illegal and will be found noncompliant.

· Non-Regulated / Non-SCA / Non-CBA Positions: The Government will review the Offeror’s year-by-year proposed rates across the Base and Option Years. The Government will analyze whether the proposed annual wage adjustments are realistic to ensure continuous retention of qualified instructors across the five-year performance period, particularly at remote installations and OCONUS locations.

M.3.3.9 Indirect Rates and Profit/Fee Substantiation

· Indirect Pool Realism: The Government will verify the validity of proposed indirect rates (Fringe, Overhead, G&A) against submitted FPRAs, FPRRs, or audited historical actuals.

· Substantiation of Proposed Rates: The Government will evaluate the realism of all proposed indirect rates (Fringe, Overhead, G&A) and profit/fee percentages across the Base Period and all Option Periods. The evaluation will verify that any proposed escalation or variance in rates between periods is reasonable and adequately supported by the documentation provided in the Offeror's Cost Narrative (e.g., FPRA, historical actuals, or other approved forward-pricing data). Unsubstantiated or unrealistic rate escalation may be assessed as a proposal risk.

· CBA Fringe Exception Audit: If an Offeror proposes an altered Fringe Benefits rate in any Option Year, the Government will perform an in-depth audit of the cited CBA clause. If the proposed change does not correlate directly to a mandatory CBA contribution increase, the rate change will be rejected, and the proposal may be deemed non-compliant.

M.3.3.10 Consistency Between Cost Proposal and Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the degree of mutual consistency between Volume III (Cost/Price) and Volume I (Technical / Program Management Plan):

· Management Resource Reconciliation: The Government will reconcile the "Above and Beyond" labor positions proposed in Part 2 of each yearly pricing sheet with the Offeror's presentation of the Management Plan described in M.3.3.1.

· Mission Support Viability: The evaluation will ensure that the proposed management and support staffing is sufficient to execute PWS 3.2 (Associate Contractor Agreements and PMO oversight), PWS 3.17 (Instructional quality control and survey administration), PWS 3.18.2 (90-day phase-in and full hiring mandate), PWS 3.18.7 (Quality Control Plan), and the operational mitigation of short-term employee absences.

· Staffing Imbalances: A significant discrepancy between the technical narrative and the cost workbook—such as proposing complex management responsibilities in the Technical Volume without corresponding labor hours in the Cost Volume—will be evaluated as an organizational risk, reflecting an inability to manage contract operations within the proposed fixed price.

M.3.3.11 Unbalanced Pricing (FAR 15.404-1(g))

The Government will review proposals to identify any presence of unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the price of one or more CLINs, periods of performance, or labor categories is significantly over- or understated (e.g., front-loading base year rates, artificially depressing option year rates, or shifting costs inappropriately between labor categories). Proposals containing significant, unjustified, unbalanced pricing that creates an unreasonable risk to the Government may be rejected.

M.3.4 Volume IV: General M.3.4.1 The Government will be checking for compliance and completeness. All required documentation from section L.3.4 must be submitted, filled out with offerors information required and signed if documentation requires it to be.

The Offeror must comply with all instructions in Section L. Failure to follow the instructions and provide all of the submission requirements will result in the proposal being rejected IAW M.2, determined ineligible, and no longer considered for award.

(End of Section)