Attachment 2 - Instruction to Offerors Amendment 1 - 11 Sep 2023.pdf

Simplified Acquisition Proposal Request (SAPR)

FA445223R0013

Instructions to Offerors & Basis of Award

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors

Amendment 1

A. This is a competitive simplified acquisition selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13. Contracts awarded under FAR 13 are not subject to FAR 15.3 procedures. Accordingly, award of a contract under this Simplified Acquisition Proposal Request (SAPR), should an award be made, shall follow the procedures outlined in FAR 13, as supplemented.

B. The proposal submitted in response to this SAPR must be in compliance with the terms and conditions stated in the SAPR and attachments, and the Performance Work Statement (PWS). All claimed capabilities to meet the requirements shall be realistic and are subject to verification by the Government. Non-conformance with these instructions may result in rejection of the proposal or an unfavorable proposal evaluation, or being deemed ineligible for award. The Simplified Acquisition Decision Authority (SADA)) will select the best submission which conforms to the SAPR requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the submission instructions), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who is best suited to fulfill the Air Force requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the SADA reasonably determines that the past performance, technical, and/or overall business approach of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

C. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to SAPR terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions are unacceptable. Any exception determined unacceptable by the Government may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. This information shall be provided in the format and content of the table below within the Offerors proposal Cover Letter. If no exceptions are taken, the Offeror shall include a statement stating so within the proposal Cover Letter.

SAPR Exceptions

SAPR

Document

Page/ Paragraph

Requirement/ Portion

Rationale

PWS,

ITO,

Evaluation Factor, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met

D. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but, rather, shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge

Formatted: Highlight of their facilities or experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

E. Discrepancies. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the CO via e-mail with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error.

F. Each Offeror shall submit proposals electronically via email to the Contract Specialist, Ms. Katelyn Timmermann at katelyn.timmermann@us.af.mil and Contracting Officers, Capt James Barrett at james.barrett.21@us.af.mil and Ms. Jennifer Gasparich at jennifer.gasparich@us.af.mil. The Offeror shall submit proposals for consideration no later than 1:00 PM (Central Standard Time), 22 September 2023. Only one proposal (to include both copies) shall be submitted, per offeror, in response to this requirement. Failure to provide the items listed above and below may render your proposal incomplete.

Incomplete proposals and proposals received after the date/time specified will not be evaluated.

G. Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this SAPR shall submit each volume as outlined below.

Text shall be single-spaced, on an 8 ½ x 11 sheet with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Font shall be no less than Times New Roman 10 pt. Pages shall be numbered consecutively within each volume. The page limits prescribed are maximum page limits for each volume. Cover pages, tables of contents, cross-reference matrices, tabs, and glossaries shall not be counted against prescribed page limits. Pages submitted in excess of these limits will not be read or considered in the Government’s evaluation of the proposal. If Interchange Notices (INs) are required, page limitations may be placed on responses to Ins. The specified page limits to IN responses will be identified in the INs to Offerors. All proposal information shall be submitted in either MS Word or PDF format except for Pricing information (Attachment 3) and Staffing Matrix (Attachment 7). Staffing and Pricing information shall be submitted in MS Excel format utilizing the Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 3) and Staffing Matrix (Attachment 7).

Each volume shall be submitted as a separately-labeled electronic file. Offerors shall submit two copies of each volume: one redacted, and one un-redacted. Information that shall be redacted includes any information that may be used to readily identify the company or associates and employees of the company, to include sub-contractors. Offerors must ensure that pricing information is only included in Volume V. Do NOT include any pricing information in Volume I-V. All electronic submissions shall reference the complete SAPR number in the subject line.

VOLUME REFERENCE TITLE

MAXIMUM NUMBER

OF PAGES

I Administrative Documents

Cover Letter / Contractual Documentation 2*

II Factor 1 Past Performance 20

III

Factor 2 Technical Approach See below20

Sub-factor 2.1 Engineering Support Functions 5

Formatted: Highlight

Sub-factor 2.2 Circuit Management Activities 5 Sub-factor 2.3 Cyber Security Functions 5

Sub-factor 2.4 Program Management/Acquisition Support

Functions

IV Factor 3 Staffing Approach Utilize Attachment 7 V Factor 4 Small Business Participation Commitment 3 VI Factor 5 Price Utilize Attachment 3

The Cover Letter shall be 2 pages. There is no limit to the other contractual documents in Volume I.

(1) Volume I – Administrative Documents:

Cover Letter shall be submitted on Offeror’s letterhead and shall include the following:

- Small business status/socio-economic category

- Company primary and alternate point of contacts to include email/phone numbers and who is authorized to contractually obligate the company

- Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code

- Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)

- A statement that the company understands the requirements specified and will meet the performance standards and requirements therein

- A statement that the company does or does not take exception to any of the requirements of this SAPR

- A statement that the proposal is valid through 30 November 2023

- A statement if an Organization Conflict of Interest exists

- Any specific information if proposing a teaming arrangement

DD254 (Attachment 5) with Block 6 and Block 7 completed, if applicable Provisions & Clauses (Attachment 6) with all fill-ins complete Small Business Subcontracting Plan – In accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Alternate II, all “other than small businesses” shall submit a Subcontracting Plan with their proposal. The apparently successful offeror’s Small Business subcontracting plan shall be assessed for compliance, but not evaluated, in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 requirements. The plan must be determined “acceptable” by the Contracting Officer in the event of an award. The SB Subcontracting Plan is a material requirement of the solicitation and any resultant contract. Unless the CO issues a determination that there are no subcontracting possibilities, failure to submit and negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan before award shall make the offeror ineligible for award of a contract. The Subcontracting Plan shall compliment the SBPCD. (Note:

Reference DFARS 219.705(d)(i) and DFARS PGI 219.7 for DoD Checklist for Reviewing Subcontracting Plans.)

*Proposals not valid through 30 November 2023 will be deemed unacceptable.

(1) Volume II – Factor 1:

The Government will evaluate past performance to assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. This evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying the services that meet the contract requirements. The currency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, content of the data, and general trends in the offeror’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

Offerors shall submit recent past performance information for relevant services to demonstrate its ability to successfully perform the solicited requirement. Recent is defined as currently being performed or was performed within the past three years prior to proposal submission due date. Relevant is defined as services which are the same or similar to those required by this solicitation. For this solicitation, those services include satellite communication engineering support for aircraft and ground communications/information programs, project/systems engineering support for communications and information programs, program management/acquisition support for complex IT projects, circuit management activities for IT systems, and Information Assurance Security Program Management and Execution as described in the PWS.

Past Performance References. The offeror shall submit no more than 5 past performance references from different contracts or efforts it has performed which are similar to the scope and complexity of services described in this solicitation. This includes work for commercial customers, Department of Defense (DoD), and other Federal agencies, and subcontracts that are similar to the Government requirements.

The Offeror shall submit Attachment 11 for each past performance reference submitted.

Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). Offerors shall complete Section 1 of Attachment 9, Past Performance Questionnaire and then send to each Point of Contact (POC) the offeror provided as a reference. The PPQ shall be completed by an individual who can validate the Offeror’s performance. Once completed, the PPQ shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the offeror. In the event adverse past performance information is received by the Government, the Contracting Officer will provide sufficient details to allow the offeror to address it. The POC shall email completed questionnaires directly to the Contracting Officers, Capt James Barrett at james.barrett.21@us.af.mil and Ms. Jennifer Gasparich at jennifer.gasparich@us.af.mil, and the Contract Specialist, Ms. Katelyn Timmermann at katelyn.timmermann@us.af.mil. NOTE: The Contracting Officer will not accept questionnaires submitted by the offeror. Offerors should use every diligent effort to follow-up with each Office/Agency to ensure the Contracting Officer receives the past performance questionnaires no later than the offer due date/time.

(2) Volume III – Factor 2:

The Technical Proposal should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors.

Provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying the sub-factors. Address your technical solution for meeting or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactor. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

(3) Volume IV – Factor 3:

The offeror shall submit their Staffing Approach Utilizing Attachment 7: Staffing Matrix.

At a minimum, the Offeror’s Staffing Approach Volume should demonstrate the Offeror’s approach in meeting the requirements of the PWS. The staffing volume should demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to perform all technical requirements.

(4) Volume V – Factor 4:

All Offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) shall provide a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) which provides substantiating documentation to demonstrate how you will meet the following requirements listed below:

1) The extent to which the offeror will utilize small business (SB), small disadvantage business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), historically underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB), and service-disabled and veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB).

2) The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, joint ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment.

3) Identification of the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform.

4) The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors/teaming partners in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value). Binding commitments in the SBPCD will become enforceable contractual requirements. The successful offeror will be required to provide reports IAW PWS paragraph on Small Business Participation.

5) Detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed quantitative participation to substantiate the feasibility of the proposed participation. (Note: This information will not be incorporated into the resultant contract.)

The required information will be used to evaluate the extent of your proposed participation/commitment to use U.S. small business in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors/teaming partners) relative to Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items, Factor 4 Small Business Participation. Small business concerns that qualify in more than one socioeconomic category may be counted in each category for which they qualify. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror shall be evaluated as Small Business Participation.

The offerors shall propose quantitative small business participation (small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors/teaming partners), in terms of value of the total acquisition (total contract value). Offerors shall provide detailed explanations/documentation to support quantitative small business participation. Binding SBPCD commitments shall become enforceable, contractual requirements (Attachment 10, SBPCD Template).

(5) Volume VI – Factor 5:

The offeror shall submit pricing information to support the completeness and reasonableness of their proposed prices for all CLINs. The pricing information submitted should fully support the PWS requirements for each major functional element specified in the PWS. A breakdown shall be provided which shows the skill mix, labor categories, labor rates and position descriptions. Information shall be segregated by the performance periods, individual performance locations, and the total price for each CLIN as specified in the solicitation. Information shall also show the consolidated total price for performance.

All unit and extended prices provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. Extended prices must be divisible by the number of units proposed. All loaded labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny. Submit your proposal electronically in accordance with the table below.

Offerors shall utilize Attachment 3 Pricing Worksheet to submit their pricing.

I. Point of contact (POC): The POCs for this acquisition are: Contract Specialist Ms. Katelyn Timmermann, she can be reached at 618-256-1188 or by email at katelyn.timmermann@us.af.mil, the Contracting Officers Captain James Barrett, he can be reached at 618-256-9933 or by email at james.barrett.21@us.af.mil, and Ms. Jennifer Gasparich, she can be reached at 618-256-9966 or by email at jennifer.gasparich@us.af.mil.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Basis of Award A. Award will be made in accordance with the procedures specified in the SAPR, to the

Offeror whose proposal results in the best value to the Government. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the SAPR’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the SAPR instructions) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors. Therefore, the Government will award a contract to the Offeror considered to be the best value, price and other factors considered.

B. Following receipt of responses to this SAPR, the Government will first evaluate and assign a rating for Factor 1: Past Performance, as described below. If an Offeror does not receive a minimum rating of Neutral Confidence, the Government will not evaluate their proposal for Factor 2, Factor 3, Factor 4, and Factor 5 and they will no longer be considered for award.

Each Offeror that received a minimum rating of Neutral Confidence will then be evaluated for Factors 2, 3, 4, and 5. The Government will assign ratings as described below for an overall Factor rating. The Government will then perform a comparative analysis between all Offeror’s that received a minimum of a Neutral Confidence Rating and an at a minimum an acceptable rating for all other factors (comparing Offeror proposals to one another) in order to select the offeror that is best suited to fulfill the requirements of the SAPR. The comparative analysis will be based on the Offeror’s responses to the factors/subfactors outlined in the SAPR.

C. Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the Contracting Officer (CO) and the Offerors that may address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time.

The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges using Interchange Notices (INs) if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the award selection decision. Interchanges may be conducted with one, some or all offerors to address any issues to include past performance, technical approach, staffing approach, small business participation, and/or price as the Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any or all Offerors responding to this SAPR.

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

Responses to this SAPR will be evaluated against the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Past Performance Factor 2: Technical Approach

Subfactor 2.1: Engineering Support Functions Subfactor 2.2: Circuit Management Activities Subfactor 2.3: Cyber Security Functions Subfactor 2.4: Program Management/Acquisition Support Functions

Factor 3: Staffing Approach Factor 4: Small Business Participation Factor 5: Price

Factor 1 Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Government shall consider the entire Airborne contract size and magnitude when considering each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance. Therefore, the offeror shall consider the entire Airborne contract size and magnitude when submitting past performance services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in the table below:

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

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.

Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance, in supplying services similar to the contract’s requirements. 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 following:

Satellite communication engineering support for aircraft and ground communications/information programs

Project/systems engineering support for communications and information programs Program Management/Acquisition support for complex IT projects Circuit management activities for IT Systems Information Assurance Security Program Management and Execution

All aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered, in addition to price. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract/order 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 available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

(a) Recency. An evaluation of the Past Performance Information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, all or some performance must have been performed within the past three-years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be considered.

(b) Relevancy. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determined how closely the services performed under those contacts/orders relate to the performance aspects listed above. 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 will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts/orders, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror or subcontractor/teaming partner whose contract/order is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information submitted by offeror’s along with information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The Government will use the following relevancy ratings when assessing recent, relevant contracts/orders:

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

(c) Quality. The Government will review recent past performance information collected, determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. This evaluation includes (if applicable), but is not limited to, the extent to which the offeror attained applicable goals for small business participation under contracts that required subcontracting plans. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance, and quality of services assessments.

Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the Factor level.

Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the performance aspects listed above and price, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the offeror’s performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned 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 recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Likewise, 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.

FACTOR 2: Technical Approach

Sub-Factor 2.1 – Engineering Support– Submittal Requirements:

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to perform engineering support.

Provide your company’s approach to perform engineering support functions (PWS paragraphs 3.1.1. and 3.2.1.)

Sub-Factor 2.2 – Circuit Management Activities– Submittal Requirements:

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to perform Circuit Management Activities.

- Provide your company’s approach to perform circuit management activities (PWS paragraph 3.3.).

Sub-Factor 2.3 – Cyber Security Functions– Submittal Requirements:

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to perform Cyber Security Functions.

- Provide your company’s approach to perform cyber security functions (PWS paragraph 3.5.).

Subfactor 2.4: Program Management/Acquisition Support– Submittal Requirements:

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to perform Program Management/Acquisition Support functions.

- Provide your company’s approach to perform program management/acquisition support activities (PWS paragraphs 3.1.1., 3.2.1., 3.3., and 3.4.).

FACTOR 3: Staffing.

Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed staffing approach based on the following:

- Provide a detailed and effective staffing plan at the prime and subcontractor level, identifying the optimum mix of labor categories, labor category descriptions, and labor hours to meet the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (Attachment 1). The plan shall provide a logical approach ensuring timely support. Labor category descriptions shall include education, experience, requisite security clearances, certifications in accordance with PWS paragraph 9.12 and any other qualifications to comply with the minimum requirements of the PWS. The plan shall include a completed staffing matrix (Attachment 7) identifying the personnel resources to perform the PWS tasks.

- Provide your company's approach to ensure the staff working on this contract will ensure availability during standard duty hours and a plan to ensure continued contract support during periods of personnel turnover and long-term absences IAW PWS paragraphs 7.5 - 7.6.

- Provide CAGE Code and the date your company was granted a Top Secret Facility Clearance.

Evaluation:

During the evaluation of the Technical Approach and Staffing Approach, the Government will assign each Factor a rating, as shown below, to identify the Offeror’s ability to accomplish subfactors/measures of merit. The overall Factor ratings will be used for the comparative analysis. Offerors will be rated by the following adjectival ratings:

Technical Approach & Staffing Approach Ratings

Rating Description

Superior Proposal provides an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements stated in the SAPR and contains one or more beneficial aspects (above minimum attributes, performance levels, or capability).

Acceptable Proposal provides an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements stated in the SAPR..

Unacceptable Proposal does not provide an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements stated in the SAPR.

FACTOR 4: Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's identification and commitment to small businesses in performance of the contract, whether teaming arrangement or subcontractor. The requirements of this factor are met when the offeror illustrates efforts taken to identify sources and opportunities, or provides justification that sources or opportunities do not exist. The extent of participation of small businesses will be evaluated and rated as described in the table below:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

FACTOR 5: Price.

Price proposals should support the proposed Factors (Technical Approach and Staffing Approach) will be evaluated in terms of completeness, reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced will not be considered for award.

The Initial-TEP (I-TEP) will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the base period, all option periods (four one-year options), and the six-month extension of services (EOS) (calculated using the monthly cost of Option 4 multiplied by six). Evaluation of options and extensions shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions. The six-month extension of services is IAW FAR 52.217-8, "Option to Extend Services", and will only be utilized if necessary. The six-month extension of services is not to be considered part of any option period and will be a separate option exercised if it is utilized. Offerors are not required to submit pricing for a six-month extension of services. After any interchanges or proposal revisions (if needed), the Government will evaluate the Final-TEP (F-TEP). If interchanges do not occur, the I-TEP will become the F-TEP.

Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s F-TEP based on the following:

i. Completeness. The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the SAPR requirements.

ii. Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis techniques at FAR 13.106-3(a).

iii. Unbalanced pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government intends, if it is in its best interest, to incorporate into the resulting contract, all beneficial aspects of the awardee's proposal (to include all above minimum attributes, performance levels, or capabilities) for which evaluation credit was given. The Government will use PWS Attachment 1 to Incorporate Performance or Capability Exceedances, as stated in SAPR Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement.