Attachment 19 - HARB Section M Evaluation Basis for Award 20230911.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Basis for Award

M1 EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

M1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation.

For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with Past Performance being significantly more important than Cost/Price. Offerors must propose on all CLINs.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

M1.2 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition. The competitive range determination can be based on

Factor 1, Technical, Factor 2, Past Performance, Factor 3, Price, Contract Documentation or any combination thereof. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions, or prior to issuance of the Final Proposal

Revision (FPR) request. In addition, the procuring contracting officer (PCO) may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, Preaward Debriefing of Offerors.

Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s demonstrated ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. The Government will evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation. For the purposes of efficiency and IAW FAR 15.306(c), Exchange with Offerors

After Receipt of Proposals, Competitive Range; the PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition for this

Performance-Price Trade-off source selection. If the PCO determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of an elimination decision will be provided to unsuccessful offeror(s) in accordance with FAR 15.503, Notifications to Unsuccessful Offerors.

M2 Proposal Evaluation

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

M2.0 General

M2.1 Discussions

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

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to conduct discussions, discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306, Exchange with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals. Discussions shall be addressed in the form of evaluation notices (ENs). Offeror response(s) to ENs for Contract Documentation, Factor 1, Technical, Factor 2, Past Performance, and Factor 3, Price, will be incorporated into the FPR, and the FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s technical proposal has been evaluated as acceptable with a complete, fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic (if necessary) price at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR must be fully explained and substantiated, and are subject to evaluation, which may render the offeror’s proposal incomplete, unfair and unreasonable, unbalanced and/or unrealistic (if necessary), causing the offeror to be ineligible for award.

M2.2 Cross Referencing

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

M3.0 (VOLUME I), Contract Documentation and Completed RFP

M3.1 General

Each proposal will be reviewed for consistency, conformance and completeness to instructions provided in Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors. This Volume is not rated and is not considered in the integrated assessment for determination of best value. However, an incomplete proposal may disqualify an offeror from further participation in the competition. In addition, each offeror’s registration, and data in the System for Award Management (SAM at www.sam.gov) will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements with FAR Part 4. Offeror’s must have a current registration in SAM to be eligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation requirements and provide complete supporting rationale in the

Contract Documentation Volume. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

NOTE: Offerors shall make no changes or modifications outside of Section L instructions the solicitation, or its attachment(s). Any such changes or modifications will be rejected and render the proposal ineligible for award.

M3.2 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the

PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposal to ensure it meets the requirements of the PWS.

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate proposals.

Factor 1: Technical (VOLUME II)

Subfactor 1: Mobilization Approach

Subfactor 2: Program Management Approach

Subfactor 3: Mission Essential Services Continuation Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance (VOLUME III)

Factor 3: Cost/Price (VOLUME IV)

M3.3 Relative Importance of Factors

The evaluation may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and subfactors and the SSA reasonably determines superior past performance, of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference.

The Government will not award a contract to an offeror that receives a Performance Confidence

Assessment rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.” The source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process.

IAW FAR 15.304(e), the relative importance of each factor and subfactor are for those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable. Tradeoffs may be made between past performance, and price, with Past Performance being significantly more important than

Price/Cost.

M3.4 Evaluation Methodology

Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. A contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 as supplemented. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price/Cost.

This may result in an award to a higher past performance confidence rated, technically acceptable, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source

Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the offeror with a higher past performance confidence rating that is technically acceptable, although higher priced, is the best value and outweighs the price difference of a lower priced, technically acceptable, lower past performance confidence rated offer.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

• Step 1 - Price Evaluation. All proposals that are determined timely and complete shall be evaluated for completeness, fair and reasonableness, balance, and realism (if necessary). Any offerors with prices determined to be incomplete, unfair, unreasonable, unbalanced or unrealistic (if necessary) shall not be considered for award, shall not be evaluated for technically capability, and shall not be evaluated for past performance. Only those offers with prices determined to be complete, fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic (if necessary) will proceed to Step 2..

• Step 2 - Technical and Past Performance Evaluation. In order of price, beginning with the lowest priced proposal, proposals will be evaluated for technical capability on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis, based on the ratings defined in Table 1 at M4.1. If the proposal receives an acceptable rating a past performance evaluation will be done. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with sections M5.0 – M5.6.

o If the lowest priced offer receives a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, and it receives an Acceptable technical rating, and the price is determined to be complete, fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic (if necessary), that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process ends at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further evaluation of any other offers technical or past performance volumes.

o If the lowest priced offer does not receive a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest priced offer will be evaluated for technical and past performance and the process will continue until an offer receives an

Acceptable technical rating and a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, or until all offers are evaluated. If the lowest priced offer receives a performance confidence assessment rating of Satisfactory Confidence or lower, the

Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror. In that event, the SSA shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision of all evaluated offerors.

M3.5 Teaming Arrangement Agreement

If any sort of teaming arrangement exists for this solicitation, the teaming arrangement agreement will be reviewed for conformance and completeness to instructions provided in Section L and to verify the prime offeror’s compliance with FAR Subpart 9.6, Contractor Team Arrangements.

Offeror will not be eligible for award when teaming arrangement documentation is found to be noncompliant.

M3.6 Facility Clearance Proof

Offeror will provide proof of their current facility clearance. Facility Clearance must be at the same level as the DD254 (Attachment 5, DD254). Offerors must show that the prime offeror has

(1) at least a SECRET final facility clearance level, or (2) at least an interim SECRET facility clearance, or (3) an existing facility clearance sponsorship letter and documentation that reasonably demonstrates that the process is in the final stages and likely to be completed no later than 01 September 2023. Proposals that do not satisfy one of the above criteria will be ineligible for award. In the case of Teaming Arrangements all teaming partners must satisfy one of the three

(3) above criteria and provide proof of their current facility clearance.

M4.0 (Volume II), Technical Factor

Factor 1: Technical (VOLUME II)

Subfactor 1 – Mobilization Approach

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written Mobilization approach adequately integrates with the existing service provider (see Attachment 20, De-Mobilization Plan) during the 60-day

Mobilization/De-Mobilization period to accomplish all areas identified in PWS A11.1. The

Mobilization Plan shall fully describe, at a minimum, the Offeror’s approach to the following: (1)

Establish the Project Management Office (PMO), and recruit, retain, and hire necessary personnel;

(2) Obtain all required certifications and clearances, including personnel security clearances; (3)

Develop a systematic and disciplined approach to achieve an efficient and effective transition; (4)

Participate in joint (Government, incumbent contractor, and offeror) inventories and sign for

Government property; (5) Develop and submit all required contract deliverables; (6) Attend post-award meetings as required; (7) Accomplish PWS required training prior to contractor performance start date; and (8) Procedures to obtain vehicles, equipment, tools, supplies, materials, and other items necessary to perform day-to-day BOS operations in place of the Government

Furnished Property listed in Attachment 3, Government Furnished Property.

Subfactor 2 – Program Management Approach

This subfactor is met when the offeror submits a written narrative that demonstrates a sound and thorough plan which clearly outlines their management approach to meeting the requirements in each tab of the PWS. This includes: (1) a strategy that addresses coverage of Key Personnel positions with trained, qualified and/or certified personnel; (2) a description of the proposed roles and responsibilities, to include position qualifications/descriptions for each organizational element

(i.e., work center or shop) and the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for each Tab; (3) an

Organizational Chart; (4) plans for staff cross-utilization as well as your staffing plans for one-deep positions meeting changed, unscheduled, urgent, and surge requirements; (5) strategy for the continuous recruitment, retention, training and retaining of a qualified/certified and capable workforce; and (6) a cross-reference matrix which includes a description of subcontractor teaming arrangements or joint ventures that addresses organizational relationships and responsibility divisions between the prime contractor and subcontractor(s) as applicable.

Subfactor 3 –– Mission Essential Services Continuation Plan

This subfactor is met when the offeror submits a written Mission Essential Services Continuation

Plan that adequately describes how the offeror will provide the continuity of mission essential services of the PWS with as little as 4-hours notification while continuing to meet contract performance standards. The plan includes their proposed capabilities of performing the work with an increased workload at minimum of 25% for a full shift.

M4.1 Technical Rating

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the technical proposal is Acceptable or Unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the Table 1. Technical Ratings below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Table 1. Technical Ratings

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M5.0 (VOLUME III), Past Performance Factor

M5.1 General

Past performance will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully which will be combined with the joint venture partners, teaming partner’s and/or significant subcontractor’s past performance record. This will be accomplished through a confidence assessment rating based on the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s past performance history that is recent, relevant, and quality to the requirements of this solicitation.

The Past Performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance of services that are similar to the solicitation requirements and the quality of the offeror’s performance record.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the significant subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency, and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past seven (7) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

M5.2 Past Performance Assessment

Past performance will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully which will be combined with the joint venture partners, teaming partner’s and/or significant subcontractor’s past performance record. This will be accomplished through a confidence assessment rating based on the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s past performance history that is recent, relevant, and quality to the requirements of this solicitation.

The Past Performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance of services that are similar to the solicitation requirements and the quality of the offeror’s performance record.

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 available to the Government to include, but not limited to: Contractor

Performance Acquisition Retrieval System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Document Access (EDA), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, COs, the Defense Contract Management

Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

M5.3 Ordering Type Contracts Submission

In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e., a

Delivery/Task Order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite

Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual

Delivery/Task Order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

M5.3.1 Series of Orders

If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

• The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a

Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total

Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

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

M5.4 Relevancy Assessment

Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude of the effort described in the RFP. For each Past Performance effort submitted (a minimum of two (2) but no more than five (5) efforts), relevancy will be determined by the similarity to the scope, complexity, and magnitude of effort of the Offeror’s performance. Relevancy will be assigned a rating outlined in Table 2. Past Performance

Relevancy Ratings. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

Performance efforts that do not meet the relevancy criteria will not be further evaluated. The following Table 3. Relevancy Definitions and Table 3.1. Relevancy Complexity Matrix – Areas of Past Performance criteria apply and will be assigned to each contract effort submitted in the offeror’s Volume III Present/Past Performance proposal:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Present/Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

Table 3. Relevancy Definitions

PRESENT/PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY MATRIX

Assessment

Area Very Relevant Relevant

Somewhat

Relevant Not Relevant

Scope

The past performance contract effort submitted by offeror and any significant subcontractor(s), joint venture partners, teaming partners, and/or mentor-protégé partners reflects experience in the performance in

ALL five (5) areas of the PWS: Tabs

B, C, D, F, and G.

The past performance contract effort submitted by offeror and any significant subcontractor(s), joint venture partners, teaming partners, and/or mentor-protégé partners reflects experience in the performance in four (4) areas of the PWS - Tab F and any combination of three (3) other areas of the PWS:

Tabs B, C, D, and/or G.

The past performance contract effort submitted by offeror and any significant subcontractor(s), joint venture partners, teaming partners, and/or mentor-protégé partners reflects experience in the performance in three (3) areas of the PWS – Tab F, and any combination of two (2) other areas of the PWS: Tabs

B, C, D, and/or G

The past performance contract effort submitted by offeror and any significant subcontractor(s), joint venture partners, teaming partners, and/or mentor-protégé partners reflects experience in the performance of less than three (3) areas of the PWS

– any combination of, Tabs B, C, D, F, and/or G.

Complexity

The past performance contract effort reflect experience in the concurrent performance of

ALL four (4) areas of listed in Table

3.1., Relevancy

Complexity

Matrix.

The past performance contract effort reflect experience in the concurrent performance of any three (3) areas listed in Table 3.1, Relevancy

Complexity

Matrix

The past performance contract effort reflect experience in the concurrent performance of any two (2) areas listed in Table 3.1, Relevancy

Complexity

Matrix, The past performance contract effort reflects experience in the concurrent performance of less than two (2) areas listed in Table 3.1, Relevancy

Complexity Matrix.

Assessment

Area Very Relevant Relevant

Somewhat

Relevant Not Relevant

Magnitude of Effort

The past performance contract effort reflects concurrent or consecutive performance on contracts/task orders/job orders with a value of at least $6M annually.

The past performance contract effort reflects concurrent or consecutive performance on contracts/task orders/job orders with a value of at least $4M annually.

The past performance contract effort reflects concurrent or consecutive performance on contracts/task orders/job orders with a value of at least $3M annually.

The past performance contract effort reflects concurrent or consecutive performance on contracts/task orders/job orders with a combined value of less than

$3M annually.

Table 3.1. Relevancy Complexity Matrix – Areas of Past Performance

1. Experience managing a workforce of more than 60 personnel with varying skill sets.

2.

Experience in cross utilizing employees over varying disciplines (e.g., materiel management, ground transportation and vehicle maintenance, traffic management operations, real property maintenance and fuels management).

3.

Experience providing day-to-day operations while responding to Natural Disaster/Crisis

Action and/or surge situations without operational degradation.

4. Experience in maintaining the schedule, deliverables and reports timely.

M5.5 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the offeror’s performance quality (how well the offeror performed on an effort/contact) of recent and relevant efforts. The performance quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available to determine the offeror’s ability to supply the services that met the contract effort requirements. This includes information available for teaming partners and significant contractors.

The assessment may include adverse information. Adverse is defined as past performance that supports an unsatisfactory or marginal rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. Offerors may have the opportunity to address adverse past performance information obtained from references i.e., PPQs on which the Offerors have not had a previous opportunity to comment, if that information makes a difference in the Government’s decision to include the Offeror or exclude the Offeror from the competitive range. This allows the Offeror a fair opportunity to rebut any negative information that may not be due solely to the poor performance of the contractor, or that may not have been adequately resolved since the date of the information provided.

M5.6 Past Performance Evaluation Confidence Ratings

The Government will evaluate past performance and assign an overall confidence rating outlined in Table 4, Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, based on all the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be arrived at by viewing all past performance in the aggregate. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract. The relevancy rating will be based on the scope, complexity, and magnitude of effort of up to five (5) recent contracts. As a result of the relevancy assessments and the quality of reported performance of the recent efforts evaluated, offerors will receive a past performance confidence rating at the factor level as outlined in Table 4, Performance Confidence

Assessments Rating Method, below.

Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Present/Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence*

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note *: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

M6.0 (VOLUME IV) Price Proposal Factors

M6.1 CLIN Schedule Review

Compliance with Section L, L5.3, Section 2: Pricing Documents, regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. Evaluation of completeness, fairness and reasonableness, balance, and realism (if necessary) will be performed as described below.

The Government will evaluate the price data submitted per Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, (Attachment 4, ITO Pricing Workbook), using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine the price is complete, fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic (if necessary). The proposed prices shall be based on the Offeror’s own technical approach submitted in Volume 1, Technical and the Government’s

PWS requirements. The offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated for completeness, fair and reasonableness, balance, and realism (if necessary) as identified in paragraphs below. Total

Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with Total Evaluated Price paragraph, below. (NOTE: Offerors shall make no changes or modifications to the ITO Workbook. Any such changes or modifications will be rejected and render the proposal ineligible for award.)

M6.2 Completeness

For completeness, offerors must provide all unit prices and extended prices for each CLIN that requires proposed pricing in Section B – Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs CLIN Schedule and the Attachment 4, ITO Pricing Workbook. Incomplete proposals (without required prices) shall render an offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

M6.3 Fair and Reasonableness

Offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated to ensure the final, agreed-to price is fair and reasonable. Price reasonableness is normally established through adequate price competition but may also be determined through price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis

Techniques. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, may be required to support the proposed price.

M6.4 Balance

Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for balance IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), Proposal Analysis

Techniques, Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstate or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in the schedule of the solicitation. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M6.5 Price Realism

The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis on the lowest price proposal(s). Proposals are understood to reflect the Offerors’ understanding of the technical requirements of the PWS in its entirety. Proposals with an unrealistic price (price too low) may be determined ineligible for award.

M6.6 Total Evaluated Price

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of all prices provided in the SF 33, section

B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost, and Attachment 4, ITO Pricing Workbook. The offeror’s proposed price will be reviewed for compliance with the instructions provided in Attachment 4.

NOTE: Attachment 4, ITO Pricing Workbook, will automatically calculate the TEP based on

Offerors' inputs. Offerors are to verify the proposed prices are calculated correctly.

The TEP will be the sum of the five-year ordering period (Including Phase In) plus the ITO Pricing

Workbook provided for CLINs X010 through X014 and the six-month option in accordance with

FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. The evaluated prices for the entire five (5) year ordering period, and the six (6) month extension option are as follows:

Total Evaluated Price = Base Ordering Period CLINs (X001-X009, 0019) + ITO Pricing

Workbook + Option to Extend IAW FAR 52.217-8 CLINs (5001-5009).

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s price of the six (6) month extension option IAW FAR

52.217- 8, Option to Extend Services.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

(End of Section)