Attachment 15- Section M- Basis of Award 18 Dec 24.pdf

Attachment 15

SPACE SYSTEMS AND HARDWARE INTEGRATION FOR NOVEL EXPERIMENTS (SSHINE)

CONTRACT

FA9453-25-R-X002

SECTION M, EVALUATION CRITERIA

M-I – SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Basis for Contract Award:

1.1 This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the FAR Site, http://www.acquisition.gov.

1.2 The Government intends to award a single IDIQ contract to an eligible small business whose proposal conforms to all the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation, including facility clearance requirements) and provides the best subjective trade-off value based upon the evaluation method described below.

1.3 Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit through the entire process.

1.4 The Government seeks to award to the Offeror whose proposal provides the best trade-off value to the Department of the Air Force, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk and Cost/Price factors. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror for a superior technical proposal.

1.5 Discussions. Offerors are reminded that the Government reserves the right to award based upon the Offeror's initial proposal, as received by the Government, without engaging in discussions. Each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best solution to this requirement. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered and evaluated in accordance with Section M evaluation criteria prior to making the source selection decision.

1.5.1 If the Offeror's proposal has been evaluated as awardable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror's proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.6 The Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one (1) single award IDIQ contract and up to three (3) initial task orders for this effort. Additional task orders may be awarded as necessary within the stated contract ordering period.

1.7 Submission. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested in Section L. and the http://www.acquisition.gov/ proposal must be valid for a minimum of 340 days. Non- conformance with the instructions provided in this Section L and/or failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being non- responsive and ineligible for award.

M-II- EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.0 Evaluation Process. The evaluation will be conducted IAW the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), and the Department of Defense source selection procedures. These regulations can be accessed electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/.

2.1 Eligibility for Award. To be considered for award, an offeror must meet the following requirements:

2.1.1 Responsiveness: Meet all solicitation requirements including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and all other information required by Section L and Section M of the solicitation. Non-responsive offers will not be evaluated.

2.1.2 Technical Rating: Receive an overall minimum purple/good combined technical/risk rating.

2.1.3 Cost/Price: Have a complete, balanced, reasonable, and realistic cost proposal based on cost/price analysis and cost realism analysis.

2.1.4 Responsibility: Be determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1.

2.2 Evaluation Steps

2.2.1 Cost/Price. The Government will order the proposals from lowest to highest cost/price by using the offerors' combined proposed cost/price for the three task orders.

2.2.2 Technical Evaluation. Beginning with the lowest cost proposal, the Government will perform technical evaluations as outlined in Section M.

2.2.3 Sequential Evaluation. Evaluations will occur sequentially with evaluation of the next lowest-priced proposal following the process described above.

2.2.4 Competitive Range. The competitive range may be limited to the first five proposals that receive a minimum purple/good combined technical/risk rating.

2.2.4.1 Should the Government find less than five suitable proposals using the above process, the competitive range may be limited to those proposals.

2.2.4.2 Should the Government only find one suitable proposal using the above process, the Government reserves the right to award to that offeror if the cost/price is determined complete, balanced, reasonable, and realistic.

2.2.4.3 Cost/Price analysis will be conducted on all proposals that make up the competitive range established as described above; these proposals will be evaluated to determine if proposed cost/price is complete, balanced, reasonable, and realistic.

2.2.5 Alternative Evaluation. If no proposal receives a minimum purple/good Combined Technical/Risk rating, offers with a green/acceptable combined technical/risk rating may proceed to cost/price analysis. The competitive range may then comprise up to five green/acceptable rated proposals.

2.2.6 Award Consideration. The Government will not award a contract to an offeror with a combined technical/risk rating less than green/acceptable. The Government reserves the right to select the highest priced proposal within the competitive range that meets or exceeds the technical requirements if it is in the http://www.acquisition.gov/ best interest of the Government and cost/price is determined complete, balanced, reasonable, and realistic.

2.3 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. The following factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each offeror's proposal:

2.3.1 Technical

2.3.1.1 Factor 1: Statement of Work Narrative

2.3.1.1.1 Subfactor 1: Corporate Management

2.3.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Overarching Technical Approach

2.3.1.2 Factor 2: Scenario Response

2.3.1.2.1 Subfactor 3: FALSESat Scenario

2.3.1.2.2 Subfactor 4: RVESat Scenario

2.3.1.2.3 Subfactor 5: RVEX HWIL/SWIL Scenario

2.3.1.2 Factor 3: Staffing Plan

2.3.1.3.1 Subfactor 6: Overview Matrix

2.3.1.3.2 Subfactor 7: Staffing Plan for TO 0001 RVEP

2.3.1.3.3 Subfactor 8: Staffing Plan for TO 0002 RVEN

2.3.1.3.4 Subfactor 9: Staffing Plan for TO 0003 RVEX

2.3.1.3.5 Subfactor 10: Cross-Utilization Matrix

2.3.2 Cost/Price

2.4 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the technical factors are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor.

2.5 The Technical evaluation is divided into multiple factors and subfactors:

2.5.1 Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance, and Factor 3 is of less importance than either Factor 1 or 2.

2.5.2 Subfactor 1 is significantly less important in the evaluation of Factor 1 than Subfactor 2.

2.5.3 Subfactors 3, 4, and 5 each carry equal importance in the evaluation of Factor 2.

2.5.4 Subfactors 7 and 8 carry equal importance in the evaluation of Factor 3.

2.5.5 Subfactors 6, 9, and 10 also carry equal importance in the evaluation, but are each significantly less important than subfactor 7 or 8.

2.5.6 Subfactors will be assessed based on specific elements.

2.5.6.1 Elements may be assessed on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The Government does not consider strengths or weaknesses for these elements, and will evaluate proposals assessed as unacceptable on these elements as having a deficiency.

2.5.6.2 Elements may be assessed on an earned value basis. These elements will not be evaluated on a binary pass/fail scale. The Government will assign strengths and weaknesses to these elements, should either be found. Beginning from an assumption of moderate risk, the Government will also make a risk mitigation assessment based on these elements.

2.5.7 The Government will assign a combined technical/risk rating to each proposal.

2.5.7.1 The Technical evaluation consists of a Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The Technical rating evaluates the Offeror's technical approach for meeting the Government's requirements.

2.5.7.1.1 Technical risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror's proposed approach for satisfying the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

2.5.7.1.2 Weaknesses, as defined in Table 2, increase the overall risk of unsuccessful performance and are based on the discrete risks they would cause to the Government. It is possible for one element of a proposal to result in multiple weaknesses.

2.5.7.1.3 The Government will assign strengths for aspects of an Offeror's proposal that have merit or exceed specified performance in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

2.5.7.1.4 Strengths, as defined in Table 2, are assessed based on the discrete benefits they will offer the Government. It is possible for an element of a proposal to result in multiple strengths. NOTE:

At the Government's discretion, aspects of the proposal identified as strengths will be incorporated into the resulting contract.

2.5.7.1.5 The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Each technical proposal will receive an overall Combined Technical/Risk rating described below, in Table 1, and in the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

2.5.7.1.6 The Government does not consider a strength evaluated in the proposal as having the ability to overcome or fully mitigate a weakness evaluated in the proposal.

2.5.7.1.7 Proposals will be considered non-responsive and will not receive a rating if they miss/omit specific content requirements from Section L.

2.5.7.1.8 Proposals will be considered non-responsive and will not receive a rating if they miss/omit a specific evaluation requirement from Section M.

2.5.7.1.9 A proposal containing any number of deficiencies will be evaluated as red/unacceptable.

2.5.7.1.10 A proposal evaluated as having a weakness, but no strengths and no deficiencies, will be evaluated as being no better than yellow/marginal.

2.5.7.1.11 A proposal containing any number weaknesses, any number of strengths, and no deficiencies will be evaluated as being no better than green/acceptable.

2.5.7.1.12 A proposal containing no strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies will be evaluated as green/acceptable.

2.5.7.1.13 A proposal must contain at least one strength, no weaknesses, no deficiencies, and must have an assessed risk of unsuccessful performance of no worse than low to moderate, based on the earned value elements, to be evaluated as purple/good.

2.5.7.1.14 A proposal must contain multiple strengths, no weakness, no deficiencies, and an assessed risk of unsuccessful performance of no worse than low, based on the earned value elements, to be evaluated as blue/outstanding.

Table 1 - Evaluation Factor Ratings Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

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

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, contains one or more weaknesses, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

Table 2 – Definitions

Term

Definition

Streng th

An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Defici ency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weak ness

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

2.6 The Government shall assess the Offeror’s understanding of and technical approach to Factor 1 by evaluating the following:

2.6.1 Subfactor 1: Corporate Management.

2.6.1.1 Plan for managing the full scope of the contract performance, including schedule and technical performance.

2.6.1.1.1 This element is evaluated as either acceptable or unacceptable.

2.6.1.2 Offeror’s proposed approach to effective management and utilization of proposed subcontractors and/or teaming partners throughout contract performance.

2.6.1.2.1 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the offeror’s experience managing teams and partners in similar work, innovative approaches to corporate management and teaming, and the use of proven methods for managing teams of subcontractors and partners.

2.6.1.2.2 This element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.6.1.3 Offeror’s proposed approach to recruiting and retention plans for experienced personnel, including key personnel, necessary for accomplishing the contract requirements from contract start through transition and the full period of performance.

2.6.1.3.1 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the offeror’s experience recruiting and retaining the required labor force in a competitive market like the Albuquerque metro area, innovative approaches to recruitment and retention, and the use of proven methods for recruiting and retaining personnel. The assessment of the recruiting and retention plan will include an analysis of the contractor's flexibility in adapting to uncertainties in Government funding, such as the occurrence and duration of continuing resolution authorities.

2.6.1.3.2 This element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.6.1.4 The offeror's organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan will be evaluated on a responsive/non-responsive level.

2.6.2 Subfactor 2: Overarching Technical Approach.

2.6.2.1 Offeror’s proposed approach to cradle-to-grave space technology program support.

2.6.2.1.1 This element evaluates an offeror's strengths at all stages of space technology development.

2.6.2.1.2 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the offeror’s experience working with space technology programs at all stages of the program life cycle, innovative approaches to supporting all stages of the space technology program life cycle, and proven methods for success throughout all stages of the space technology program life cycle.

2.6.2.1.3 This element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.6.2.2 Offeror’s proposed approach to managing space technology programs at different levels of risk and complexity.

2.6.2.2.1 This element evaluates the offeror's strengths in supporting specific areas space technology program support.

2.6.2.2.2 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the offeror’s experience working with space technology programs, innovative approaches to supporting space technology programs, and proven methods for success in managing a space technology program.

2.6.2.2.3 This element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.6.2.3 Offeror’s proposed approach to scaling RVE capabilities to meet increasing demand without increasing program risk.

2.6.2.3.1 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the offeror’s experience scaling their work processes with increasing demand, innovative approaches to scaling work processes to meet increasing demand, and proven methods for scaling work processes to meet increasing demand.

2.6.2.3.2 This element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.6.2.4 Approach to Mission and Space System Development tasks as defined in the basic contract SOW and TO SOWs.

2.6.2.4.1 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the offeror’s experience performing tasks in the Mission and Space System Development functional area, innovative approaches to tasks in the Mission and Space System Development functional area, and proven methods to tasks in the Mission and Space System Development functional area.

2.6.2.4.2 This element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.6.2.5 Offeror’s proposed approach to Flight Experiment Prototyping, Assembly, Integration, and Testing as defined in the basic contract SOW, task order SOWs, and in Section L-1.1.4.

2.6.2.5.1 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the offeror’s experience performing tasks in the Flight Experiment Prototyping, Assembly, Integration, and Testing functional area, innovative approaches to tasks in the Flight Experiment Prototyping, Assembly, Integration, and Testing functional area, and proven methods to tasks in the Flight Experiment Prototyping, Assembly, Integration, and Testing functional area.

2.6.2.5.2 This element if evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.6.2.6 Offeror’s proposed approach to Flight Experiment Operations as defined in the basic contract SOW and task order SOWs.

2.6.2.6.1 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the offeror’s experience performing tasks in the Flight Experiment Operations functional area, innovative approaches to tasks in the Flight Experiment Operations functional area, and proven methods to tasks in the Flight Experiment Operations functional area.

2.6.2.6.2 This element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.6.2.7 Offeror’s proposed approach to Ground System Development as defined in the basic contract SOW, task order SOWs, and in Section L-1.1.4.

2.6.2.7.1 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the offeror’s experience performing tasks in the Ground System Development functional area, innovative approaches to tasks in the Ground System Development functional area, and proven methods to tasks in the Ground System Development functional area.

2.6.2.7.2 This element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.7 The Government shall assess the Offeror's understanding of and technical approach to Factor 2 by evaluating the following:

2.7.1 Subfactor 3: FALSESat Scenario

2.7.1.1 The Government's evaluation of the FALSESat scenario concerns the offeror's process for understanding and scoping a sudden requirement change, and the technical risks and business risks of the offeror's approach to gaining an understanding of the FALSESat surge requirement, as well as completing the remaining work on the FALSESat program.

2.7.1.1.1 The technical approach, in the context of this element, is a holistic evaluation of the offerors experience absorbing scope changes in a space technology program, innovative approaches to tasks scope changes in a space technology program, and proven methods for absorbing scope changes in a space technology program.

2.7.1.1.2 The technical element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.7.1.1.3 The management approach, in the context of this element, is an evaluation of whether the approach described is compatible with AFRL mission timelines, financing/contracting timelines, and policies.

2.7.1.1.4 The management element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.7.1.1.5 Consistency of scenario narrative with technical approach narrative and staffing plan will be evaluated as acceptable/unacceptable.

2.7.2 Subfactor 4: RVESat Scenario

2.7.2.1 The Government's evaluation of the RVESat scenario concerns the offeror's process for understanding and scoping planned and deliberate program development and scaling as well as familiarity with space technology programs. Specifically, the Government will evaluate the technical and management approaches the offeror would take toward transitioning the RVESat requirement to its own task order while minimizing impacts to TO 0001 RVEP, any new teaming, subcontract, and/or recruitment efforts the offeror would investigate to approach the requirement, and the approach to balancing technical, cost, and schedule risk through the remaining RVESat life cycle.

2.7.2.1.1 The technical approach, in the context of this element, is a holistic evaluation of the offeror’s experience managing multiple task orders within a Government contract, innovative approaches managing multiple task orders within a Government contract, and proven methods for managing multiple task orders within a Government contract effectively.

2.7.2.1.2 The technical approach evaluation is made on an earned value basis.

2.7.2.1.3 The management approach, in the context of this element, is an evaluation of whether the approach described is compatible with AFRL mission timelines, financing/contracting timelines, and policies

2.7.2.1.4 The management evaluation is made on an earned value basis.

2.7.2.1.5 Consistency of scenario narrative with technical approach narrative and staffing plan will be evaluated as acceptable/unacceptable.

2.7.3 Subfactor 5: RVEX HWIL/SWIL Scenario

2.7.3.1 The Government's evaluation of the RVEX HWIL/ SWIL scenario concerns the offeror's process for understanding and scoping planned and deliberate program development to include test execution in a space technology program. Specifically, the Government will evaluate the technical approach and the management of the offeror's approach to gaining an understanding of the scope and needs of the RVEX HWIL/SWIL requirement, approach to leveraging internal RVE and SSHINE support, teaming, and/or subcontracts to approach the requirement, and the Offeror's approach to balancing technical, cost, and schedule risk within a specific testing/experimental campaign.

2.7.3.1.1 Technical approach, in the context of this element, is a holistic evaluation of the offeror’s experience conducting space technology testing campaigns, innovative approaches to conducting space technology testing campaigns, and proven methods for conducting space technology testing campaigns.

2.7.3.1.2 The technical approach evaluation is made on an earned value basis.

2.7.3.1.3 Management approach, in the context of this element, is an evaluation of whether the approach described is compatible with AFRL mission timelines, financing/contracting timelines, and policies.

2.7.3.1.4 The management approach evaluation is made on an earned value basis.

2.7.3.1.5 Consistency of scenario narrative with technical approach narrative and staffing plan will be evaluated as acceptable/unacceptable.

2.8 The Government shall assess the Offeror's understanding of and technical approach to Factor 3 by evaluating the following:

2.8.1 Subfactor 6: Overview Matrix

2.8.1.1 The Offeror has proposed appropriate labor categories and minimum qualifications to accomplish the tasks required by SSHINE, and that the Offeror has standardized labor categories amongst any and all subcontractors and partners.

2.8.1.1.1 The Government shall make this assessment based on the data provided in the Overview Matrix tab of the staffing plan spreadsheet.

2.8.1.1.2 This element is evaluated as either acceptable or unacceptable.

2.8.1.2 The Offeror clearly demonstrates appropriate labor category descriptions, education, professional qualifications, licenses, training, certifications and/or security clearances necessary to meet or exceed all SSHINE requirements.

2.8.1.2.1 The Government shall make this assessment based on the data provided in the Overview Matrix tab of the staffing plan spreadsheet.

2.8.1.2.2 This element is evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable.

2.8.1.2.3 Any missing/ omitted SSHINE requirements will result in a finding of a deficiency and an evaluation of unacceptable.

2.8.1.3 The Offeror has proposed a staffing plan in line with the Government reference staffing matrix in Section L-I, Table 2.

2.8.1.3.1 The Government will make this assessment based on the data in all tabs of the staffing plan spreadsheet, on an FTE basis.

2.8.1.3.2 Proposals exceeding the Government reference staffing matrix by 15% or more for a branch/task order will be counted as having a weakness due to excess.

2.8.1.3.3 Proposals falling short of the Government reference staffing matrix by 15% or more for a branch/task order will be counted as having a weakness due to technical risk.

2.8.1.3.4 Corporate Management/Overhead personnel are considered outside the constraints of the +-15% bounds described above.

2.8.1.3.5 This element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.8.2 Subfactor 7: The offerors staffing plan for TO 0001 RVEP is sufficient to meet task order requirements.

2.8.2.1 The Government will make this assessment using the data provided in the TO 0001 RVEP tab of the staffing plan spreadsheet.

2.8.2.1.1 Labor categories and number of personnel will be evaluated against the corresponding requirements the offeror has assigned them to in the TO 0001 RVEP SOW.

2.8.2.1.2 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the plan's suitability for staffing the space technology program tasks outlined in TO 0001 RVEP and includes an assessment skill mix has been successfully applied to space technology programs or offers significant advantages due to an innovative approach.

2.8.2.1.3 This element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.8.3 Subfactor 8: The offerors staffing plan for TO 0002 RVEN is sufficient to meet task order requirements.

2.8.3.1 The Government will make this assessment using the data provided in the TO 0002 RVEN tab of the staffing plan spreadsheet.

2.8.3.1.1 Labor categories and number of personnel will be evaluated against the corresponding requirements the offeror has assigned them to in the TO 0002 RVEN SOW.

2.8.3.1.2 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the plan's suitability for staffing the space technology program tasks outlined in TO 0002 RVEN and includes an assessment skill mix has been successfully applied to space technology programs or offers significant advantages due to an innovative approach.

2.8.3.1.3 This element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.8.4 Subfactor 9: The offerors staffing plan for TO 0003 RVEX is sufficient to meet task order requirements.

2.8.4.1 The Offeror’s staffing plan for TO 0003 RVEX is sufficient to meet task order requirements.

2.8.4.1.1 The Government will make this assessment using the data provided in the TO 0003 RVEX tab of the staffing plan spreadsheet.

2.8.4.1.2 Labor categories and number of personnel will be evaluated against the corresponding requirements the offeror has assigned them to in the TO 0003 RVEX SOW.

2.8.4.1.3 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the plan's suitability for staffing the space technology program tasks outlined in TO 0003 RVEX and includes an assessment skill mix has been successfully applied to space technology programs or offers significant advantages due to an innovative approach.

2.8.4.1.4 This element is evaluated on an earned value basis.

2.8.5 Subfactor 10: The Offeror's cross utilization plan does not add significant risk to any of the task orders due to overutilizing specific persons.

2.8.5.1 The Government will evaluate cross utilization using the cross-utilization matrix tab of the staffing plan spreadsheet.

2.8.5.1.1 Offeror’s will be evaluated on the approach, credibility, and reasonability of any and all personnel assigned to multiple task orders.

2.8.5.1.2 This element will be assessed as a holistic evaluation of the plan based on the efficacy of cross-utilization contrasted with full time work on a given task order.

2.8.5.1.3 Cross utilization will not be considered credible or reasonable if a person does not have sufficient time allocated to effectively contribute to a task order requirement.

2.8.5.1.4 Cross utilization will not be considered credible or reasonable if a person is tasked more than full time in total.

2.8.5.1.5 Cross utilization will be evaluated on an earned value basis.

3.0 The Cost/Price evaluation is based upon the following:

3.1 The Offeror's Cost/Price proposal must be complete, balanced, reasonable, and realistic for all three initial Task Orders to be considered for award. Each offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for completeness, unbalanced pricing, reasonableness, and cost realism. The Offeror's Cost/Price proposals will be evaluated by individual Task Order, less baselined costs, and then combined into a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is the sum of the three individual task orders Most Probable Cost (MPC) computed by the Government.

3.1.1 Completeness. The Government shall review the Offeror's proposed Task Orders 0001, 0002, and 0003 for completeness based on the requirements contained in Section L of the solicitation.

3.1.2 Balance. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers for each task order to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Cost/Price. Per FAR 52.215-1(f)(8), the Government may determine a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, including option years, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.1.3 Reasonableness. A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed what a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. Offeror's Task Order 0001, 0002, and 0003 total cost/price must be determined reasonable individually and together in forming the TEP to be eligible for award. NOTE: In the event the Government's performed cost realism analysis determines Offeror's task order proposal to have a probable cost (defined in paragraph 3.1.4.1 below) different than the proposed cost, the probable cost of performance will be used for evaluation purposes.

3.1.4 Cost Realism. When contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis, evaluations shall include a cost realism analysis. Cost realism analysis is the process of evaluating specific elements of each offeror's proposed cost estimate to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort and to evaluate the Offeror's understanding of the work and ability to perform the task order. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed; reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror's technical proposal FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and FAR 2.101.

3.1.4.1 The cost realism analysis will be used to determine the most probable cost (MPC) of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by an offeror.

The resultant probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value (FAR 15.305(a)(1), 15.404-1(c)(1) and 15.404-1(d)(1) and (2)). The Government shall evaluate the proposed prime labor, indirect rates, fee and subcontract labor, indirect rates and fee for non-competed subcontractors as well as pricing for competed subcontractors to determine cost realism on Task Orders 0001, 0002, and 0003. The Cost/Price team may confer with the Technical Evaluation Team for assistance in determining cost realism. Task Order 0001, 0002, or 0003 cost/price proposals deemed by the Government to be unrealistic may not be eligible for award.

3.1.4.2 The MPC may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government's best estimate of the cost most likely to result from the Offeror's proposal. The MPC will be used in determining best value. The overall evaluated MPC includes the likely cost to the Government for all cost CLINs less baselined costs and will be used in the TEP.

3.2 If any Task Order Cost/Price proposal is determined to be incomplete, unbalanced, unreasonable and/or unrealistic, the Cost/Price proposal as a whole will be determined incomplete, unbalanced, unreasonable and/or unrealistic.

3.3 Data & Reports CDRLs will not be evaluated as they are Not Separately Priced (NSP).

3.4 To facilitate the evaluation of the proposal, the Government reserves the right to use information from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), U.S. Department of Labor, S&P Global Indices, comparable General Schedule scale, Government historical contract prices, and any other resources available to the Government.

3.5 When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and the Offeror fails to explain the under-estimated costs, the Government will consider, under the combined technical/risk rating, the Offeror's lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical Subfactor.

3.6 No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available.