FA701426R0020 - Media and Social Media Analysis Tool

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1-- Instructions to Offerors (ITO) -- Commercial Items

1.0 CONTRACT

This is a competitive 100% Small Business award. This acquisition will result in a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) award with a 12-month base period), plus four, one-year options, and a six-month option to extend services in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.217-8.

2.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by this Instruction to Offerors (ITO) and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offeror shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Statement of Work Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this ITO may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

2.2 The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements.

Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

2.3 System for Award Management (SAM). Offerors will not be eligible to receive a contract award from a Department of Defense (DOD) activity unless they are registered in SAM.

Offerors must be registered in the SAM Database prior to award of any contract. Firms must register on a one-time basis and annually confirm accuracy and completeness of registration information. Online registration and instructions can be accessed at https://www.sam.gov.

2.4 It is the Government’s intent to award without interchanges. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

2.5 The Government will conduct price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404 to evaluate proposed prices and may reject prices which do not reflect a clear understanding of the requirements or are not consistent with the offeror's technical/mission capability proposal.

2.6 By submission of its offer, the Offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award.

https://www.sam.gov/

3.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

3.1 The Contracting Officer (CO), Parris Kennedy, and the Contracting Specialist (CS), Stacy Rutherford are the sole points of contact for this acquisition. All questions or concerns shall be e-mailed to the CO and CS by 12:00pm Eastern Time on 1 April 2026. The CO and CS may be reached via e-mail at: parris.kennedy@us.af.mil and stacy.rutherford.ctr@us.af.mil. Oral questions will not be accepted.

3.2 All proposals shall be received by the contracting team by 12:00 pm Eastern Time on 07 April 2026 via email. It is the responsibility of the offeror to verify receipt of proposals with the CO or CS. No hand deliveries will be accepted. The proposal submission requirements apply to all elements of the proposal. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR Provision 52.212-1(f) Late Submissions, Modifications, Revisions and Withdrawals of Offers.

3.3 It is the responsibility and at the discretion of the offeror regarding format and clarity of subcontract information. However, separate submissions of subcontracting information that is proprietary and sensitive should, at the minimum, clearly indicate the corresponding offer. The proposal submission requirements apply to all elements of the proposal, including all separate submissions or Contractor Teaming Arrangements (CTA) that are part of the offer.

3.4 The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its amendments have resulted in an increasing number of requests from outside the Government for copies of contract qualifications and proposals submitted to federal agencies. If an Offeror’s submissions contain information that he/she believes should be withheld from such requestors under FOIA on the grounds that they contain “trade secrets and commercial or financial information” [5 USC§552(b)(4)], the Offeror should mark its submissions in the following manner:

The following notice should be placed on the title page: “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 -- Some parts of this document, as identified on individual pages, are considered by the submitter to be privileged or confidential trade secrets or commercial or financial information not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Material considered privileged or company confidential on such grounds is contained on page(s) .”

Each individual item considered privileged or confidential under FOIA should be marked with the following notice: “The data or information is considered confidential or privileged and is not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.”

3.5 After solicitation posting, subsequent interchanges between Government and responding offerors will be controlled by the CO and CS. E-mail will be used to transmit such information to offerors. The Government intends to send answers to questions with an amendment to the solicitation and distribute via email. Offerors shall submit all communications via email to the CO and CS at the email addresses identified above.

mailto:parris.kennedy@us.af.mil mailto:stacy.rutherford.ctr@us.af.mil

3.6 If this RFP is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged.

Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment(s) to this RFP by the date and time specified in the amendment(s). Failure to acknowledge any amendment(s) could result in the offeror being excluded from award.

3.7 Oral Presentations will not be permitted.

3.8 The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

3.9 If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without interchanges. Accordingly, Offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are well defined and clearly acceptable without additional information and additional or substitute pages.

4.0 PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

4.1 The purpose of these instructions is to prescribe the format of proposals and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. They are designed to ensure the essential information required for evaluation of proposals is submitted.

Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government intends to make an award based on initial offers received without interchanges.

4.2 To assure timely and equitable evaluation of the proposal, the offeror must follow the instructions contained herein. The proposal must be complete, self-sufficient, and respond directly to the requirements of this solicitation. The response shall consist of three (3) separate volumes; Volume I – Technical/ Mission Capability, Volume II – Past Performance, and Volume III – Price.

4.2.1 Proposal Organization: The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the

Proposal Organization Table below. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in the table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified. Each volume identified in the table below shall be individual documents.

The content of each proposal volume is described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the Table 1 below:

Proposal Organization Table

Volume Volume Title Page Limit

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

I FACTOR I: TECHNICAL APPROACH 5

II FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE Unlimited III FACTOR III: PRICE Unlimited

4.2.2 Electronic Copies: Do not compress any files. Electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in the following formats: Microsoft (MS) Word 2016 or higher, MS Excel 2016 or higher, MS Power Point 2016 or higher, or Searchable Portable Document Format (PDF), as applicable. Offerors must ensure that pricing information is only included in Volume III. Do NOT include any Pricing information in Volume I or Volume II. All unit and extended prices provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. Extended prices must be divisible by the number of units proposed. All burdened labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

4.2.3 Page Limitations: Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read nor considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Blank pages, title pages, cover pages, table of contents, tab indexing, glossaries, list of tables and figures, subcontractor consent letter(s), and resumes are not included in the page limitation. Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures may be used to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc.

4.2.4 Page Size and Format: A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8½ x 11 inches. Pages shall be single-spaced and typed, except for displays and the reproduced sections of the solicitation document. The font shall be Times New Roman and no less than 12 point in size. Use at least 1-inch margins on the top and bottom. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

When text is included within displays, it may be no smaller than 10 point but must be clearly legible without magnification. The size of any displays shall not exceed the page size as defined above. Fold out pages are accepted for Volume III, FACTOR III:

PRICE. The page size and format restrictions shall also apply to responses to Proposal Revision Opportunity Notices (PRON), if applicable (see section 5.0 for definition of

PRON).

4.2.5 Title Page: Each volume must include a title page and will not count against page limitations IAW Table 1 above. The title pages must show:

(1) Solicitation Number

(2) Name, address, telephone numbers and e-mail address of the offeror (only one copy for all required volumes)

(3) Cage Code/ DUNS

4.2.6 Cross-Referencing: The proposal volumes shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross referencing to another volume.

4.2.7 Indexing: Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections and will not count against page limitations IAW Table 1 above.

4.2.8 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms: Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each. As stated above in paragraph 4.2.2, glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

4.2.9 Cross Reference Matrix: Offerors shall identify the specific location of the proposal requirements and verify that full compliance has been achieved and that the Cross Reference Matrix is complete and accurate.

5.0 PROPOSAL VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS

5.1 Volume I – Executive Summary and Technical Approach (Factor I)

5.1.1 Executive Summary: The executive summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding price.

The salient features should tie in with evaluation factors/subfactors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal; it will be considered for informational purposes only and will not be evaluated for award.

5.1.2 Factor I Technical Approach: The Offeror shall provide the following in a comprehensive format to enable the government to fully evaluate the information presented in the Offeror’s technical proposal. The technical proposal should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide a proposal that enables the Government to effectively evaluate the Offeror’s technical proposal. The Offeror has the burden to provide a proposal that demonstrates the Offeror has an accurate understanding of the technical requirement and that the Offeror has a viable technical approach and methodology to complete the requirement IAW with the Statement of Work (SOW). The proposal should not merely reiterate or rephrase the objectives or reformulate the Government’s requirements specified in the solicitation but shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements.

5.2 Volume II – Past Performance (Factor II)

5.2.1 The Offeror shall provide past performance information to be evaluated. The offeror shall provide a maximum of two (2) contracts for the prime contractor. Any submission over the maximum stated above will be disregarded and will not be evaluated. For past performance on an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, a single task order will count as one citation. The following information should be included for each identified contract and subcontract. Offerors are cautioned to ensure that information is current and accurate with respect to the listed points of contact.

(1) Contract Number

(2) Contract Level (prime or subcontract) and Cage Code

(3) Contractor name, address, and point of contact

(4) Type of contract (CPFF, FPIF, FFP, etc.) and dollar value per year and lifecycle cost

(5) Date of award, period of performance and completion date

(6) Current name, organization, mailing address, voice/fax telephone numbers and e-mail:

i. PCO

ii. ACO

iii. Contracting Officer Representative (COR) / Program Manager

(7) Original and current contract dollar amount (if different provide brief description of the reason)

(8) Contractor Performance (Description of effort as prime or key subcontractor/team/partner/participant). Include the total price of the effort and annual value. Explain any differences between original and current contract dollar values. Offerors may include a discussion of problems encountered on prior contracts and corrective actions taken. In describing contractual effort, provide information on efforts accomplished to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as efforts to identify and manage program risk even if other team members performed this area on the provided citation.

5.2.2 The offeror shall provide recent, relevant and quality past performance information.

To be recent, the effort must have at least six (6) months of continuous active contract performance within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Relevant information is that of any contract that included the same or similar requirements to the PWS. The past performance of companies associated with proposed contractor teaming arrangements may be used to count towards recent and relevant past performance. CTAs will be compliant with Para 3.3. and 5.2.7 of this solicitation.

5.2.3 Offerors will send out Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (see attachment 5) to each reference identified in the Past Performance Volume (excluded from page limitation). The responsibility to send out the Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the Offeror. The information contained in complete questionnaires will be considered sensitive and will not be released to the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to contact the references provided by the Offeror and any other references generated by the Government to discuss the Offeror’s past performance.

The offeror should make its best effort to send out a sufficient number of PPQs to reasonably expect the CO will receive at least one questionnaire on each cited contract/work effort. Offerors shall not complete any information in PPQs, and questionnaires received directly from offerors will not be evaluated. References will return completed questionnaires via email directly to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist, listed in section 3.1 above, no later than 12:00 pm

Eastern Time on April 7, 2026.

5.2.4 The offer shall provide a list of questionnaire recipients with the Point of Contact (POC) and phone number for each contract reference provided as part of the Past Performance Volume to the POCs listed above. The Offeror is solely responsible for the accuracy of the contact information provided. The Government reserves the right to contact the references provided by the Offeror and any other references generated by the Government to discuss the Offeror’s present and past performance.

5.2.5 Subcontractor past performance information cannot be disclosed to the Prime

Offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide a letter in the Past Performance Volume from all Subcontractors consenting to the release of their past performance information to the Prime contractor (letters do not count towards page count). The written consent(s) should be submitted as part of the Present/Past Performance Volume. Should the Offeror not submit consent, the Government will only discuss present/past performance information directly with the prospective subcontractor or teaming partner that is being reviewed. If there is an issue with the proposed subcontractor’s or teaming partner’s present/past performance, the Offeror can be notified but no details may be discussed without the subcontractor’s/teaming partner’s permission.

5.2.6 If a CTA is contemplated, provide a summary as to the overall arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with the same partner. The teaming arrangement summary shall be included in Volume II – Past Performance.

5.3 Volume III – Price (Factor III)

5.3.1 Offerors shall provide other than certified cost or pricing data required to evaluate whether prices proposed are complete, balanced, fair and reasonable. Price proposals should be sufficiently detailed to support the CO’s determination. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the offeror. Compliance with the instructions herein is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the proposal.

5.3.2 The information submitted should fully support the SOW requirements for each major functional element specified in the PWS. Offerors shall use the attached pricing sheet (See attachment 3) to provide a breakdown which shows the skill mix, labor categories, labor rates and position descriptions. Information shall be segregated by the performance periods, individual performance locations, and the total price for each CLIN as specified in the solicitation. Information shall also show the consolidated total price for performance.

5.3.3 The price proposal must include prices for a 12-month base period (includes, plus four, one-year options, and a 6-month option to extend services in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.217-8. If the extension of service clause (FAR 52.217-8) is exercised, it will be at the exact same rates and terms, other than length of performance, as the base or option period being extended. The anticipated Period of Performance is as follows:

Period of Performance STARTS ENDS Base Period April 16, 2026 April 15. 2027 Option Year 1 April 16, 2027 April 15, 2028 Option Year 2 April 16, 2028 April 15, 2029 Option Year 3 April 16, 2029 April 15, 2030 Option Year 4 April 16, 2030 April 15, 2031 6 Month - Option to Extend Services April 16, 2031 October 15, 2031

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 This is a competitive 100% Small Business award Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection under FAR Subpart 19.104-1. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable. Past performance is significantly more important than price; however, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Government reasonably determines that a higher rated performance provides the best value. While the Government source selection evaluation team will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. In order to be considered for award, the offeror must be determined responsible (as described in FAR 9.104), meet all solicitation requirements (including terms and conditions), be technically acceptable, be assessed a past performance rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial”, and have a price that is complete, balanced, fair and reasonable.

1.2 The evaluation will be based on three (3) factors: (Volume I) FACTOR I Technical

Approach, (Volume II) FACTOR II – Past Performance, and (Volume III), FACTOR III - Price. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an offeror’s proposal. Proposals will be evaluated using the following evaluation process steps:

1.2.1 Step 1 – Proposal Adequacy: The Government will review proposals for completeness

(adhering to all information/instructions in the ITO). If an offeror fails to comply with instructions in the ITO, the offeror’s proposal may be deemed incomplete and will receive no further consideration and be eliminated from the competition. The Government will only evaluate proposals deemed complete.

1.2.2 Step 2 - Factor I: Technical Approach: The Government will evaluate all complete proposals for technical acceptability. A rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be assigned for each subfactor. All subfactors must be deemed “Acceptable” for Factor 1 to be deemed “Acceptable”. To be eligible for award, an offeror must receive an “Acceptable” rating for Factor I. Only proposals determined “Acceptable” on Factor 1 will proceed to be evaluated for Factor 2. Proposals determined

“Unacceptable” for Factor 1 will receive no further consideration.

1.2.3 Step 3 - Factor II: Past Performance: The Government will evaluate all technically acceptable offeror’s past performance submissions for recency, relevancy, and quality. Each past performance submission will be determined as recent or not recent. Then, each recent past performance submission will receive a relevancy rating. Next, each recent and relevant past performance submission will be assessed for quality. As a result of recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the individual contracts evaluated an overall past performance rating will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. Only offerors with a past performance rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial” will move on to Step 4 to be evaluated under Factor III, Price. Any proposals receiving a rating below “Satisfactory” for Factor II will receive no further consideration.

1.2.4 Step 4 - Factor III: Price. The proposed Price Volume will be evaluated for completeness, balance and reasonableness.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor I – Technical Approach: The Government will evaluate each offeror’s technical approach proposal, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound approach that meets the requirements of the PWS section 2.0, and demonstrates a thorough and comprehensive understanding of those requirements.

The Government will evaluate Factor 1 Technical Approach on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, assigning ratings as defined below.

Acceptable – Proposal must both 1) clearly meets the minimum requirements and 2) indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable – Proposal does not 1) clearly meets the minimum requirements, 2) does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and 3) is not awardable.

2.1 Factor II – Past Performance: The Government will evaluate each offeror’s past performance submissions for recency, relevancy, and quality. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant performance in supplying the services that meet the PWS requirements. Past performance will be rated as defined in the “Performance Evaluation Rating” table below. In order to be considered for award, an offeror’s performance rating must be “Satisfactory” or “Substantial.”.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING TABLE

Substantial

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

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will

Neutral

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

Limited

Government has low expectations that the offeror will

(a) The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance ratings as described in the “Performance Evaluation Rating” table above.

(b) Past Performance is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements defined in the PWS. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and commercial sources. Interviews may be conducted with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or other sources known to the Government.

(c) 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. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a past performance rating of “Neutral”. Additionally, more recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the past performance rating than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Neutral” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.1.1 Recency: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have at least six (6) months of continuous active contract performance within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.1.2 Relevancy: For each recent citation, a relevancy determination of the offeror’s present and past performance information, including subcontractors and teaming partners, will be made. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the past performance rating than less recent or less relevant efforts.

Relevancy consists of present or past performance of a similar magnitude of effort and complexity of effort as it relates to the requirements of this acquisition. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

The performance matrix and data obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevance of present and past information. The Government will conduct a review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed relates to the proposed effort. The Government will, as deemed necessary, confirm present and past performance information identified by offerors in their proposals. The Government may consider relevant information performed for other agencies of the federal, state or local Governments and commercial customers. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance citations, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, Subcontractor, or teaming partner. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the degrees of relevancy identified in the “Past Performance

Relevancy Ratings” table below.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING TABLE

Rating Definition

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.

2.1.3 Quality: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent and relevant past performance and will determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the past performance evaluation rating. The Government will consider information from Past Performance Questionnaires and other Government resources on how well the Offeror performed on past contract citations and other contracts that are available from other Government sources. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services and the work performed will be assessed. The quality performance assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall adverse trends.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the past performance rating than a less relevant effort.

2.1.4 Individual contract past performance regarding predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated the same as past performance information for the principal offeror;

however, offerors with relevant past performance as a Prime Contractor may be assessed a higher overall rating than offerors without any relevant past performance as a Prime Contractor.

2.1.5 Factor III – Price: The Government will evaluate each offerors price proposal will be evaluated for completeness, balance, and reasonableness. Only proposals determined to be complete, balanced, fair and reasonable will be eligible for award.

Proposals shall support the proposed technical approach and will be evaluated based upon (i) Total Evaluated Price (TEP), (ii) completeness, (iii) reasonableness and (iv) unbalanced pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award.

2.1.6 Total Evaluated Price: The proposal will be evaluated based on the TEP, which includes the base period and all options, to include the sum of the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs. The price proposed for each CLIN includes the applicable unburdened labor hour rates, burden rate, profit (profit is not to be included in the burden rate), and any other rate applied to each respective CLIN total (i.e.

Material Handling Fee). The six-month extension under FAR 52.217-8 will be evaluated, however it will not be included in the TEP. Evaluation of option prices shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.1.7 Completeness: The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the priced elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto.

2.1.8 Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of proposed price IAW FAR 15.405. For the price to be reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. An offer that is determined to be unreasonably high will not be considered for award. Please note the pricing sheet (attachment 3) will be incorporated into the resultant contract.

2.1.9 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether proposed prices are unbalanced. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items, and option prices. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.0 INTERCHANGES

3.1 Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the Contracting Officer (CO) and the Offerors that may address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time. The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges using Interchange Notices (INs) if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the order selection decision. Interchanges may be conducted with one, some or all Offerors as the Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any or all Offerors responding to this Request for Proposal (RFP).

3.2 Once the Government determines the Offeror that is best suited to meet stated requirements, the Government reserves the right to communicate with only that Offeror to address any issues, if necessary, and finalize an order with that Offeror. If the parties cannot successfully resolve outstanding issues, as determined pertinent at the sole discretion of the Government, the Government may communicate with the next best-suited Offeror, based on the original analysis and address any necessary issues with that Offeror. If the government begins communications with the next best-suited Offeror, no further communications with the previous Offeror will be entertained until after order award. This process will continue until an agreement is successfully reached and an order is awarded.

5.0 PROPOSAL REVISION OPPORTUNITY NOTICES (PRON)

If required (based upon interchanges discussed above in section 3.0), the offerors will provide proposal change pages along with their Interchange Notice responses for any aspect of the proposal that will be incorporated into the awarded contract. After interchanges are completed, offerors will not be given any further opportunity to submit proposal revisions.

The CO reserves the right to request Proposal Revisions from all, some or none of the offerors.