Attachment 2 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2.pdf

Attachment 2 – Evaluation Factors

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between past performance and price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable.

Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government

Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the

Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DAFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 04 Mar 2011, and Department of the Air

Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Federal

Acquisition Regulation website, https://acquisition.gov.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals.

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable”. The judgement of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered correctable or if the amount of corrections needed to meet the

Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated.

1.4. Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or https://acquisition.gov/ displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach. The Government may also reject any proposal that is evaluated and Offeror is not prepared or available to begin work promptly upon award.

1.5. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, 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 FPR will be considered in making the SS decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, Offeror responses to ENs must be included in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award.

1.6. Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. 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.

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

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

2.1.1 Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Demonstration of Graphics Creation and File Type

Manipulation Capabilities

Subfactor 2: Security Requirements

Subfactor 3: Management Plan

Subfactor 4: Technical Approach

Subfactor 5: Resource/Personnel Management

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors.

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) is considered to be slightly more important than Factor 3 (Price). Both factors will be evaluated on this basis.

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology.

The Government will evaluate all factors for all proposals. Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each Offeror. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in Paragraph 2.2. below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in Paragraph 2.3. below. Price will be evaluated as described in Paragraph 2.4. below.

For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

The Technical evaluation will be based on each’s offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical section. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below.

Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall Technical rating.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor One - Demonstration of Graphics Creation and File Type Manipulation

Capabilities

2.2.1.1 Background

As a part of the Government evaluation of the proposal, the Government will assess the Offeror’s demonstration of graphics creation and file type manipulation capabilities.

The Government has included in this solicitation four .png files (ITO Attachments 1.2.1 - 1.2.4) consisting of images of varying quality that the Government has previously required to be replaced in digital technical orders with a clean and legible .cgm file version.

Offerors shall utilize software, personnel skillsets, or other tools to produce a clean digital image using Adobe Acrobat, with any text boxes or lines of text being “searchable” within the finished tech order. Completed changes shall be returned to the Government as both a .cgm file and a .pdf file as a demonstration of the Offeror’s capabilities.

Offerors are required to submit the following deliverables to be evaluated:

1) Clean, Legible .CGM and .PDF Files

2) Description of Methods Used

3) All Software or Tools Used

4) Hours/Manpower Utilized

5) Affirmation of Offeror’s capability to do the same under CLIN(s) X002 - X022 throughout contract award period.

2.2.1.2 Evaluation Methodology for Subfactor One

The Government will evaluate file submissions for demonstration of graphic editing and manipulation capability under Subfactor One. Offerors who are determined as “Acceptable” under

Subfactor One will be eligible for the remainder of the evaluations under Factor 1 – Technical, Factor

2 – Past Performance, and Factor 3 – Price. Offerors who are determined as “Unacceptable” in

Subfactor One will not be eligible for award and will not be evaluated under the remainder of Factor

1 – Technical, Factor 2 - Past Performance, and Factor 3 – Price.

In this instance, the Government will document the deficiency in Subfactor One. The Offeror will not be allowed opportunity to correct any deficiency identified under Subfactor One as part of discussions. The Offeror may be determined “Unacceptable” in Subfactor One based on any identified deficiency in Subfactor 1, which will thus make the Offeror also Unacceptable in Factor 1

Technical and therefore ineligible for award. The Government will not evaluate the remainder of the

Offeror’s proposal for Factor 1 - Technical, Factor 2 - Past Performance, or Factor 3 - Price.

ACCEPTABLE: The Contractor submitted a Demonstration that includes the following elements:

1) a clean, digital image via Adobe Acrobat, with text boxes and/or lines of text that are

“searchable”;

2) a description of the Contractor’s methods used in preparing the demonstrated file;

3) a listing of all software or tools used by the Contractor in preparing the demonstrated file;

4) the number and type of hours worked on the demonstrated file;

5) a statement affirming the Contractor’s capability to perform the same or similar work under this contract throughout the contract period of performance.

UNACCEPTABLE: The Contractor failed to submit a Demonstration or submitted a Demonstration without one or more of the following elements:

1) a clean digital image via Adobe Acrobat, with text boxes and/or lines of text that are

“searchable”;

2) a description of the Contractor’s methods used in preparing the demonstrated file;

3) a listing of all software or tools used by the Contractor in preparing the demonstrated file;

4) the number and type of hours worked on the demonstrated file;

5) a statement affirming the Contractor’s capability to perform the same or similar work under this contract throughout the contract period of performance.

2.2.2 Subfactor Two – Security/Safety

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Security/Safety approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR

52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance:

1) Approach to safeguard technical data, source data, and meet security. This effort supports classified programs, systems, and material. Individuals performing work on this task order must be United States citizens and comply with applicable program security requirements at the time of task order award and replacement approval (PWS Section 5.2).

2) A detailed discussion of the Offeror’s physical security plan, which will ensure that

Government Furnished Information (GFI), for which the Offeror is responsible, will be safeguarded and secured. Include the type of key/combination control, end-of-day security check procedures, and a discussion of how employee conformity to security requirements will be affected. Discuss measures taken to provide key/combination security in the event that employees are terminated or reassigned, and include procedures for ensuring that password protection is in place (PWS Section 3.1).

ACCEPTABLE: Contractor Proposal clearly demonstrates it shall comply with all requirements found in the PWS Sections 3.1 & 5.2.

UNACCEPTABLE: Contractor proposal fails to meet requirements of PWS Sections 3.1, & 5.2.

2.2.3. Subfactor Three – Management Plan

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Management Plan by reviewing the proposal for details including but not limited to:

1) Transition Plan - The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate a phase-in and phase- out transition plan for the phasing-in and out of contractor performance. The period between award date and full performance start date constitutes the contract phase-in period. The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate a successful transition plan to recruit, hire, and retain qualified applicants to meet PWS requirements. The phase-out contractor performance shall be outlined in transition plan to demonstrate the contractor approach (PWS Section 5.12).

2) Address company policy regarding quality maintenance practices and quality workmanship in Quality Control Plan (QCP). Include specific procedures for implementing company policy requiring quality maintenance practices and quality workmanship and ensure compliance with the PWS (PWS Section 4.18).

3) Approach to provide offsite hosting/storage services to facilitate technical information exchange meetings and historical file access and plan to meet schedule for all government deliverables (PWS Sections 1.1.f and 1.1.7).

4) Approach to meet program requirements at primary operating base as well as TDY locations; to include, an effective communications process with the

Government that ensures successful accomplishment of all task order requirements (PWS

Section 4.13).

5) Submit a detailed plan to include a discussion of how each type of record will be created, updated, and maintained. Describe in detail the methodology to be implemented for data collection in support of contract performance elements within the PWS including quality control planning and data. (PWS 1.1.6 and all subparagraphs)

6) Describe training and procedures used to ensure that each employee performing work under the contract is aware of required COMSEC, security policy, procedures, & requirements, and Foreign Disclosure restrictions. (PWS 5.2.7.1, 5.2.7.5, and 5.2.7.6)

ACCEPTABLE: Contractor Proposal clearly demonstrates it shall comply with all requirements found in the PWS Sections 1.1.f, 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 4.13, 4.18, 5.2.7.1, 5.2.7.5, 5.2.7.6, 5.12.

UNACCEPTABLE: Contractor proposal fails to meet requirements of PWS Sections 1.1.f, 1.1.6, 1.1.7, 4.13, 4.18, 5.2.7.1, 5.2.7.5, 5.2.7.6, 5.12.

2.2.4. Subfactor Four – Technical Approach

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed technical approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of ALL requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components:

1) The approach to develop Electronic Technical Orders eTO. (PWS Section 4.11)

2) Clearly describe plans to meet required time constraints contained within the PWS for

Emergency and Urgent Technical Order deliveries. (PWS Sections 1.1.3, 4.16.1, and 4.16.2)

3. Clearly describe approach to show how Computer Software/Computer Software

Documentation (CS/CSD) will be used to facilitate Technical Order sustainment.

Demonstrate ability to Hyperlink IPDF technical data capabilities, the ability to create style sheets for printing, capability to produce eTOs IAW PWS. Demonstrate accuracy in converting technical data in SGML format. (PWS Sections 1.1.1 and 1.1.4.i)

ACCEPTABLE: Contractor Proposal clearly demonstrates it shall comply with all requirements found in the PWS Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.4.i, 4.11, 4.16.1, & 4.16.2

UNACCEPTABLE: Contractor proposal fails to meet requirements of PWS Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.4.i, 4.11, 4.16.1, & 4.16.2

2.2.5. Subfactor Five – Resource/Personnel Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s resource/personnel management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to

FAR 52.212-1. To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

1) A manning process that ensures the Offeror will successfully maintain a capable workforce to accomplish the entire scope of effort and successfully handle surges/variables in workload requirements IAW PWS Sections 1.1.3., 2.0., 4.3.3., 4.16.2., and 4.16.3.

2) An organizational approach and management structure which ensures an appropriately qualified, sufficiently staffed workforce to perform all PWS requirements and skill sets.

ACCEPTABLE: Contractor Proposal clearly demonstrates it shall comply with all requirements found in the PWS Sections 1.1.3., 2.0., 4.3.3., 4.16.2., and 4.16.3, and is deemed capable of maintaining a sufficiently staffed workforce to perform all PWS requirements.

UNACCEPTABLE: Contractor proposal fails to meet requirements of PWS Sections 1.1.3., 2.0., 4.3.3., 4.16.2., and 4.16.3, and is not deemed capable of maintaining a sufficiently staffed workforce to perform all PWS requirements.

2.3 Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.1. Past Performance Ratings.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

2.3.2. Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence 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 Technical subfactors and Price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the

Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. 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, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The

Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the offeror’s past performance.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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.

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment.

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2. Relevancy Assessment:

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the

Technical subfactors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance (as defined in Section 4.2 of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort.

The past performance information forms contained in ITO Attachments 1.1.1 - 1.1.3 of FAR 52.212-

1 Addendum and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

(R)

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR)

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope, magnitude and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

1) Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the Missile Technical Order

Support (MTOS) requirement.

2) Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the technical subfactors.

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost, Time and

Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the MTOS requirement.

2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) (to include ratings and supporting narratives), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality 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 a significant unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. 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 have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting

(or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing

(or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.3.3. Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.3.1 above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4 Factor 3 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness), (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award.

Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected, if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all offerors, including option prices. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations, not to include Travel Cost Reimbursement CLIN X024, as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this section. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all Offerors. This TEP price rollup is based on the specific

CLIN calculation methodology outlined in the proposed pricing matrix (ITO Attachment 1.3). These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the Basic Period to include initial transition, all

Option Periods, and the 6-month Extension Period. The Extension Period is in accordance with

Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in ITO Attachment 1.3, Pricing Matrix.

2.3.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

FAR Part 12 Acquisition of Commercial Items applies. Commerciality does not alleviate the

Government’s responsibility to determine pricing fair and reasonable. According to FAR 15.403-3

(c), requiring information other than cost or pricing data is generally limited with adequate price competition and commercial item acquisition. However, at a minimum, the Contracting Officer must use price analysis to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable. Proposed pricing is not determined fair and reasonable based solely on the fact that a price-- in and of itself-- is included in a catalog. If the Contracting Officer cannot determine whether an offered price is fair and reasonable, even after obtaining additional information from sources other than the Offeror, the Contracting

Officer must require the Offeror to submit information other than cost or pricing data to support further analysis (see FAR 404-1).

2.3.2. Unbalanced pricing

The Offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer that exhibits unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more contract line items (CLINs) is significantly over or understated as indicated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or the offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are balanced with respect to separately priced CLINs. To assist with this requirement Offerors are required to insert proposed unit and extended prices into Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs Section of the Request for Proposal.

Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Unreasonably low or high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement.

Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the

Offeror.

2.3.3. Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, and must ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The

Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

Unrealistic prices or estimates may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based upon an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement. Offerors are also cautioned to not use underbidding as a pricing strategy with the intention of “getting well” or recovering under-bid costs after contract award via Requests for Equitable Adjustments or other devices.

2.3.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

It is the intention of the Government to award without discussions. Offerors are cautioned to submit complete pricing proposals that fulfill all pricing requirements as stated in this solicitation. If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items applies to this solicitation. FAR 12.209 gives the requirement to establish price reasonableness in accordance with 13.106-3 (Simplified Acquisition

Procedures), 14.408-2 (Sealed Bidding), or 15.4 (Contract Pricing by Negotiation), as applicable.

FAR part 15 applies regarding price analysis as a basis for determination of reasonable and balanced pricing.

2.3.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, pricing instructions. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format:

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed CLIN(s) prices for One (1) twelve

(12)-month Base Period, four (4) One (1)-year Option Periods and a six (6)-month Extension

Period in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”. The six (6)-month

Extension Period unit prices will be based on the proposed Option Period four (4) unit prices. The six (6)-month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary.

Note: The offeror’s proposed pricing for CLIN X024, Travel Cost Reimbursement, will not be evaluated.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the

Government to exercise such options. The six (6)-month Extension Period is not to be considered part of Option Four (4)—the last option period. The six (6) Month Extension Period will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.