Attachment 2 - Instructions to Offeror Evaluation for Award.pdf

Attachment 2 – Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation for Award MCHB IDIQ Solicitation #75R60226R00026

Page - 1 - of 11

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS AND EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

IDIQ Title: Evidence Reviews of Newborn Screening Genetic Conditions

AGENCY: Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB)

Acquisition Authority: FAR Part 15 (Contracting by Negotiation) & FAR Part 16.5 (Indefinite-Delivery Contracts) Competition Type: Full and Open Competition

PART 1: PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND SOLICITATION LIMITATIONS

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is issued as a Full and Open Competition under NAICS Code 541690 (Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services). Any qualified commercial, academic, non-profit, or public entity is eligible to submit a proposal as a Prime Contractor.

Utilization of Specialized Expertise: Offerors are highly encouraged to secure the specialized clinical, rare disease, and academic expertise required for systematic evidence reviews. Offerors may utilize external networks, medical centers, academic institutions, or individual consultants as subcontractors or team members. Large business Prime Contractors will be required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 if the total value of the proposal exceeds the statutory threshold.

Consistent with the small business socioeconomic goals of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Prime Offerors—regardless of their own business size—are highly encouraged to actively partner with, team with, or utilize Small Businesses, Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, HUBZone Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, and Women-Owned Small Businesses as subcontractors or consultants in the execution of the SOW task areas.

Award Protocols and Negotiation Flexibility: The Government intends to award the Master IDIQ pool contracts and the concurrent Task Order 1 based strictly on initial proposals received, without conducting formal negotiations. Therefore, initial submissions must contain the Offeror’s absolute best technical terms and binding ceiling rates. However, this restriction applies solely to the initial award pool and Task Order 1. For all subsequent Task Orders issued under this IDIQ, the Contracting Officer (CO) reserves total discretionary authority to conduct streamlined negotiations, request targeted spot-discounts, or utilize expanded clarifications in accordance with RFO protocols to achieve the best value for the Government.

Questions: Offerors may submit technical, administrative, or pricing questions regarding this RFP. All questions must be submitted via email to the Contracting Officer, Elizabeth Van Absher at EVanAbsher@hrsa.gov and the Contracting Specialist, Ms. Shawn Horton at SHorton@hrsa.gov no later than Wednesday, September 9, 2026, at 3:00 PM EDT.

mailto:EVanAbsher@hrsa.gov mailto:SHorton@hrsa.gov

Page - 2 - of 11

All questions must be submitted using Attachment 4 (Excel format). Questions submitted in the body of an email or alternative formats may not be considered. The Government intends to issue a formal RFP amendment on Sam.gov containing official answers on or about Friday, September 11, 2026. The submission of questions does not alter or extend the final Proposal closing date.

Proposal Submission Deadline: All final proposal volumes must be submitted electronically to the via email to the Contracting Officer, Elizabeth Van Absher at EVanAbsher@hrsa.gov and the Contracting Specialist, Ms. Shawn Horton at SHorton@hrsa.gov no later than Tuesday, September 22, 2026, at 5:00 PM EDT. Late submissions will be handled strictly in accordance with the late proposal provisions of FAR 15.208 and FAR 52.212-1 (f) and will not be considered for award.

Proposal Structure: The Offeror’s submission shall consist of three (3) separate, distinct volumes:

• Volume I: Technical Proposal (Strictly limited to 25 pages; Resumes and Letters of Commitment are excluded from the page limit and placed in an Appendix).

• Volume II: Past Performance Proposal

• Volume III: Price Proposal (Conforming to the strict Firm-Fixed-Price task order framework).

As part of the submission, Offerors must provide a completed response/answer to provision 52.204-24 within their administrative submission.

VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

Volume I: Technical Proposal

• Section 1: Master IDIQ Technical Approach & Management Plan (Capabilities to perform Tasks 1–8 over the 5-year period, management structure, and Section 508 compliance).

• Section 2: Task Order 1 Technical Approach (The explicit scientific methodology, key questions framework, and SME recruitment plan for candidate conditions nominated for the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel). The Government will evaluate the depth of the Offeror's scientific understanding and methodology of conducting systematic evidence reviews of rare, genetic, or public health conditions.

1. Price Exclusion: The Technical Proposal must not contain any dollar values, labor rates, or cost figures.

2. Exceptions: The Offeror must include a statement indicating whether any exceptions are taken to the terms and conditions of the master IDIQ solicitation as part of the transmittal letter. Any exceptions must include identification of the specific paragraphs and the rationale for each exception.

3. Compliance: Failure to follow all steps in these Request for Proposal (RFP) instructions mailto:EVanAbsher@hrsa.gov mailto:SHorton@hrsa.gov

Page - 3 - of 11 may result in your Proposal receiving no further consideration for award.

4. Formatting and Page Limits: The Technical Proposal is strictly limited to twenty-five

(25) single-sided pages, printable on 8.5 x 11-inch paper, with 1-inch margins. Text must be no smaller than font size 12 Times New Roman, with no less than 1.15 line spacing.

Offerors may include 11 x 17-inch foldouts only to display graphics, flow charts, organizational charts, or drawings. Exhibits, graphics, charts, and captions shall be no smaller than size 10 font. Pages must be numbered consecutively throughout the document. Pages exceeding the 25-page limit will be electronically redacted/removed from the file and will not be forwarded to the panel for evaluation.

5. Exclusions from Page Limits: The following sections are exempt from the 25-page technical limit:

o Table of Contents / Title Page / Cover Page o Resumes (Appendix) o Letters of Commitment (Appendix) o Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangements

TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS AND STRATEGIC REQUIREMENTS

The Technical Proposal must not contain references to price; however, non-price resource information—such as data concerning labor categories, number of hours, subcontracts, and partner alignments—must be detailed in the Technical Proposal so that the Offeror's structural understanding of the requirement may be evaluated.

Volume I will be evaluated across three (3) technical subfactors:

• Subfactor (a): Technical Approach

• Subfactor (b): Key Personnel and Academic Credentials

• Subfactor (c): Management Plan and Subcontractor/Joint Venture Integration

Technical Subfactor (a): Technical Approach. The Offeror’s technical Proposal will be evaluated on the degree to which it demonstrates:

1. The completeness, feasibility, clarity, and soundness of the technical approach to address the requirements in the design, delivery, monitoring, and reporting of technical assistance/support activities and deliverables defined in the Statement of Work (SOW).

2. A detailed description of the overall and comprehensive understanding of the purpose, scope, and population-level policy problems being addressed by the SOW, expressed in the Offeror’s own words.

3. A detailed description of the proposed approach, scientific methodology, and analytical tools to be used for each distinct task area in the SOW.

4. Demonstrated institutional knowledge and understanding of the regulations, statutes, oversight duties, and public health mission of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau

(MCHB).

Technical Subfactor (b): Key Personnel and Academic Credentials The Offeror’s technical Proposal will be evaluated on the degree to which it:

Page - 4 - of 11

1. Provides the qualifications and resumes for all proposed personnel. Resumes must be included as an appendix to Volume I and shall not exceed three (3) pages per individual.

The Offeror must provide a resume for the Principal Investigator (PI)(s) or it may be disqualified.

2. Demonstrates the adequacy of corporate capabilities and key personnel in terms of education levels, advanced clinical degrees, and documented experience with systematic, evidence reviews for rare, genetic/medical conditions that may be recommended for addition to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP) for newborns, inclusive of clinical, research, and policy frameworks experience. Personnel will be evaluated on their capabilities to perform, manage, and administer similar projects, including:

o Directing and managing complex public health project services.

o Structuring scientific methodologies to collect, process, analyze, and assess clinical information/data and preparing systematic clinical evidence reviews.

o Generating clear, concise reports on project activities, outcomes, and population-level policy recommendations.

o Identifying, arranging, and utilizing an array of experienced academic consultants and medical university networks to support the project.

3. Includes signed Letters of Commitment for all proposed subcontractors, external consultants, and university staff members whose hiring or participation is contingent upon the award of the IDIQ.

Technical Subfactor (c): Management Plan and Quality Control The Offeror’s Technical Proposal will be evaluated on the degree to which it demonstrates:

1. An in-depth, comprehensive understanding of the operational complexities involved in managing a multi-faceted public health service, including lines of authority and communication across varied scientific teams.

2. A complete organizational chart that identifies the prime Offeror's organization, as well as any consultants, subcontractors, or Joint Venture (JV) partner organizations. The chart must demonstrate clear lines of authority and responsibility among staff, and between the prime/team leader and any proposed partners, confirming the feasibility of how and by whom tasks will be completed.

3. The adequacy and appropriateness of the number and mix of proposed staff hours. The Proposal must include a staff loading chart (presented by personnel name/title, hours mapped to specific SOW tasks, and broken down by year if the level of effort changes) for all proposed personnel.

4. An effective and meaningful strategy for utilizing small business subcontractors and partners to support the evidence review tasks, reflecting a clear commitment to contributing to the socioeconomic utilization goals of HHS and HRSA.

5. A robust internal quality assurance, Section 508 compliance methodology, and editorial framework, specifically demonstrating:

o A reliable, repeatable process for ensuring that all digital electronic deliverables—specifically the Manual of Procedures (Task 1), the systematic evidence reports (Task 2), scoping reviews (Task 3), and journal manuscripts (Task 7)—are generated from inception to conform with applicable Section 508

Page - 5 - of 11 standards.

o A clear methodology for utilizing the HHS Section 508 Accessibility Compliance

Checklists to self-certify all deliverables prior to submission to the COR.

o An operationally sound workflow for utilizing editing software to verify, score, and maintain the mandatory Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score of at least 60 for public-facing deliverables (such as the Task 2.6 consumer summary).

VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

Offerors shall submit a total of three (3) past performance references for Volume II where the Offeror acted as a prime contractor, a Joint Venture (JV) member, or a major subcontractor for relevant work completed within the past three (3) years. "Relevant" is defined as similar in size, scope, and complexity to the RUSP program requirements. Out of the three (3) references, a maximum of one (1) reference may be submitted for a proposed subcontractor or JV partner.

If a small business Offeror has not held relevant Federal prime contracts, they may submit references from state/local government, private sector clients, or Federal projects utilizing the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 2b). Offerors shall forward the Questionnaire to their clients for completion. The client must submit the completed questionnaire directly via email in PDF format to Ms. Shawn R. Horton at SHorton@hrsa.gov with a copy to Elizabeth Van Absher at evanabsher@hrsa.gov no later than Friday, September 18, 2026, by 5:00 PM

EDT.

Acceptable formats for past performance data within Volume II are:

• Past Performance Questionnaires sent directly by the client.

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings printed and included in Volume II.

• A combination of direct questionnaires and attached CPARS reports.

VOLUME III – PRICE PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

• Part A: Master IDIQ Labor Rate Schedule (Fully burdened ceiling labor rates for the Base and all Option Periods).

• Part B: Task Order 1 Firm-Fixed-Price Proposal (A binding, bottom-line fixed price broken down by milestones/deliverables for the execution of the assigned initial condition review).

• Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Businesses Only): In accordance with FAR 52.219-9, since the master IDIQ contract pool features an overall ceiling of $15.1 Million—which exceeds the statutory threshold of $750,000—any Prime Contractor classified as a Large Business under NAICS 541690 must submit a formal Small Business Subcontracting Plan as part of their Volume III administrative upload. Failure to submit an acceptable plan will render a Large Business ineligible for Master IDIQ award.

Price Proposals must be submitted using the Government-provided Excel template and consist of the following:

1. Standard Form 1449 (Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Products and

Page - 6 - of 11

Commercial Services). The Offeror must complete blocks 17a (Name, address, TIN, UEI, and authorized negotiator contact info) and 30a–30c (Signature and date of the individual authorized to legally bind the organization).

2. Completion of “Section K - Contractor Representations and Certifications” (Attachment 3).

3. Failure to submit a fully completed Section K checklist or providing inaccurate certifications may render the Proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

4. Standardized Pricing Schedule: Offerors must provide hourly unit pricing and total pricing formatted exactly to the structure of Attachment 2a – Pricing Spreadsheet, broken down by the contract Base Year and all four (4) subsequent 12-month Option Periods. Proposing alternative payment milestones or unrequested costs may result in the Proposal being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. Other Direct Costs (ODCs) are excluded; database or journal access fees must be accounted for within standard corporate overhead/labor rates. Reimbursable Travel must utilize the fixed Government NTE plug number of $35,000.00 per year.

• Labor Category Mapping and Contract Alignment:

For every labor category proposed within Attachment 2a – Pricing Spreadsheet, Offerors must explicitly map the proposed role to the SOW Task by labor category.

• Consultants, Subcontractors, and Joint Venture Partners: Offerors must provide fully burdened labor rates and hours for all proposed consultants, subcontractors, and partners.

EVALUATION CRITERIA & BEST VALUE TRADEOFF FRAMEWORK

A. BASIS FOR AWARD. The Government will evaluate Proposals based on the documentation provided. Source Selection will be conducted utilizing a Best Value Trade-off process for Factors 1, 2, and 3.. (Volume I maps to Factor 1, Volume II to Factor 2, Volume III to Factor 3)

• Master IDIQ Pool Determination: The Government intends to award a pool of Master IDIQ contracts to the responsible Offerors whose proposals represent the Best Value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. The Government anticipates awarding a pool of approximately three (3) to five (5) master contracts; however, the Government reserves the right to award more, fewer, or no contracts at all if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

• Concurrent Task Order 1 Award: Concurrently with the establishment of the Master IDIQ pool, the Government intends to award the initial task order, Task Order 1: Support for Evidence Reviews and Newborn Screening Processes and Reports, as a strict Firm- Fixed-Price (FFP) order.

• Fair Opportunity Exception: To meet the accelerated programmatic deadline and satisfy the initial funding requirement, the Government will utilize the Fair Opportunity

Page - 7 - of 11

Exception under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D) (Order necessary to satisfy the minimum guarantee). Task Order 1 will be awarded simultaneously at the time of master contract signing to the single highest technically ranked Offeror within the selected Master IDIQ awardee pool whose pricing is determined fair, reasonable, and realistic.

• Contract Minimum Guarantees:

o Task Order 1 Awardee: For the single highest technically ranked Offeror selected for the concurrent award of Task Order 1, the formal execution of Task Order 1 satisfies the Government's contract minimum guarantee. No separate action or cell entry is required in the price template for this guarantee.

o Master IDIQ Pool Awardees: For all other successful Offerors selected for the Master IDIQ pool who are not awarded Task Order 1, the contract minimum guarantee is established as a nominal value of $2,500.00. This nominal value will be formally obligated by the Government via an administrative order immediately following the execution of the master contract vehicle. Offerors shall not add, calculate, or pre-populate this $2,500.00 minimum guarantee anywhere within their Attachment 2a Pricing Spreadsheet submission.

B. FACTOR WEIGHTING RELATIONSHIPS

When conducting the Best Value Trade-off, the relative importance of the evaluation factors is established as follows:

• Factor 1 (Technical) is significantly more important than Factor 2 (Past Performance).

• Factor 2 (Past Performance) is more important than Factor 3 (Price).

• All non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price factor.

The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve only slightly superior technical performance. In the event that Technical and Past Performance evaluations reveal that two or more Proposals are determined to be approximately equal, the Price factor will become increasingly more important in selection.

C. FACTOR-SPECIFIC EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES

Factor 1: Technical Technical will be evaluated on an adjectival basis at the subfactor level. Evaluators will assign an overall adjectival rating supported by a written narrative identifying specific evaluation findings.

The technical findings and rating scales are defined as follows:

Technical Finding Description

Significant Strength

An aspect of a Proposal that has appreciable merit. It appreciably exceeds specified requirements and will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of a Proposal that has merit. It exceeds specified requirements and will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

Page - 8 - of 11

Significant Weakness

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

Deficiency A material failure of a Proposal to meet a requirement; or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

• Outstanding: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

• Good: Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

• Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

• Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding. The Proposal has one or more weaknesses, which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

• Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not awardable.

Factor 2: Past Performance Past performance involves a two-step review: a Relevancy Assessment and a Performance Confidence Assessment.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Standards

• Very Relevant: Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires.

• Relevant: Past performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires.

• Somewhat Relevant: Past performance effort involved some of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires.

• Not Relevant: Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Confidence Assessment Standards

• Exceptional Confidence: Very high expectations of successful performance based on recent/relevant record.

• Very Good Confidence: Very good expectations of successful performance based on recent/relevant record.

• Satisfactory Confidence: Reasonable expectations of successful performance based on recent/relevant record.

• Marginal Confidence: Minimal expectations of successful performance based on

Page - 9 - of 11 recent/relevant record.

• Unsatisfactory Confidence: No expectation of successful performance based on recent/relevant record.

• Unknown Confidence (Neutral): No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the record is too sparse to assign a meaningful rating.

APPLICATION OF A NEUTRAL RATING IN THE BEST VALUE TRADEOFF:

An Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, shall receive an "Unknown Confidence (Neutral)" rating. During the Best Value Trade-off analysis, a Neutral rating will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. The Government will neither penalize nor reward the Offeror. Instead, the selection official will evaluate the Proposal strictly on its Technical merit (Factor 1) and Price (Factor 3).

An Offeror with an "Unknown Confidence" rating may be selected for an award over a vendor with a "Satisfactory" or "Exceptional" past performance rating if their Technical Proposal is superior enough to justify the tradeoff, or if their proposed Price represents the best value to the Government. Conversely, a vendor with an active record of "Exceptional Confidence" may be selected over a Neutral vendor if the selection official determines that the active record represents a lower performance risk that is worth a reasonable price premium.

Factor 3: Price (VOLUME III: PRICE PROPOSAL) EVALUATION

1. Overview and Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The Government will evaluate Price Proposals to ensure compliance with the instructions set forth herein to determine if the proposed pricing is fair, reasonable, complete, and realistic.

Evaluation and the subsequent Best Value Trade-off determination will be conducted strictly based on the calculated Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP is a calculated figure used for evaluation purposes only and does not commit the Government to a specific task order award value beyond the minimum contract guarantee. The TEP will be calculated using the formulas embedded in Attachment 2a – Pricing Spreadsheet, which aggregates the following elements:

• Task Order 1 Core Price: The total proposed Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) for Tasks 1 through 8 across the Base Year and Option Year 1.

• Task Order 1 Optional Tasks: The total proposed price for Optional Tasks 1, 2, and 3, across the Base Year and Option Year 1, as outlined in the SOW.

• Government-Provided Plugs: The inclusion of the fixed Government Not-To-Exceed (NTE) travel plug of $35,000.00 per applicable performance year.

2. Price Completeness The Government will assess the completeness of the Price Proposal to ensure the Offeror has provided pricing for all requirements, tasks, and options outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW) and the spreadsheet template.

• Zero-Value or Blank Entries: Omission of prices, leaving fields blank, or inserting "$0.00" or "N/A" for any baseline deliverable item in Tab 3 “TO1 FFP Schedule”— unless explicitly permitted by the template—will be interpreted as a failure to propose to the complete requirement. This may cause the entire proposal to be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

• Structural Adherence: Bidders must utilize the exact baseline framework provided in Attachment 2a. While the Excel sheet may be adapted or expanded by the Offeror to

Page - 10 - of 11 align tasks and underlying formulas with their specific technical approach, proposals that alter or delete the mandatory Government Labor Categories (LCATs), modify the hardcoded Travel NTE plugs, or add open-market cost carve-outs violating the Firm- Fixed-Price structure will be rejected without further evaluation.

3. Price Reasonableness (Fairness and Reasonableness) In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), the Government will evaluate the proposed prices to ensure they are fair and reasonable. Price analysis techniques will be utilized, which may include:

• Comparing proposed prices received in response to the solicitation (adequate price competition).

• Comparing proposed prices with historical prices paid for similar services within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

• Comparing proposed prices with Independent Government Cost Estimates (IGCE).

• Comparing proposed labor rates with established market benchmarks, Federal General

Schedule (GS) equivalents, or GSA Federal Supply Schedule contract vehicles.

4. Price Realism Analysis In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), a price realism analysis will be performed on the Firm- Fixed-Price elements of Task Order 1. The purpose of this analysis is to verify that the Offeror truly understands the technical requirements and that their proposed price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance or quality.

The evaluation will look specifically at Tab 4 “TO1 Labor BOE Mapping” to cross-verify the underlying level of effort against the technical volume:

• Under-engineering/Lowballing: Labor hours or labor mixes that are significantly lower than the Government's baseline expectation for complex scientific procedures (e.g., conducting up to 10 simultaneous rare disease reviews or formulating the screening methodology matrix) will be flagged as an indication of a lack of technical understanding.

• Cross-Volume Consistency: The labor hours and categories listed in the Price Volume must match exactly with the resource descriptions, project management workplans, and technical staffing rosters detailed in the Technical Volume. Discrepancies between the volumes will be evaluated negatively and may result in an "Unacceptable" technical or price rating.

5. Unbalanced Pricing In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), the Government will analyze proposals to determine if they contain unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over- or understated.

• Front-Loading: The Government will analyze the pricing progression from the Base Year through the four Option Periods on Tab 2 “Master IDIQ Labor Schedule”. Front-loading (proposing excessively high rates in early years and unrealistically low rates in later years to maximize early cash flow) will be scrutinized.

• Deliverable Imbalance: Within Task Order 1, if an Offeror places an excessive cost burden on early administrative milestones (e.g., the Kickoff Meeting or Project Management Workplan) while understating the value of primary scientific deliverables

Page - 11 - of 11

(e.g., the Final clinical evidence-based review report), the proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the imbalance creates an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6. Subcontractor and Consultant Alignment The Government will evaluate the fully burdened rates of all subcontractors, consultants, and joint venture partners to ensure they are properly integrated into the single Master IDIQ Labor Rate Schedule. Subcontractor LCAT definitions must map directly back to the Prime’s overarching labor categories, and their rates cannot exceed the established IDIQ ceiling rates proposed in Tab 2.

• Task Order 1 FFP Evaluation: The Government will evaluate the bottom-line Firm- Fixed-Price submitted for Task Order 1 for fairness, reasonableness, and realism. While this specific FFP will be evaluated for baseline risk, the overarching Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will serve as the definitive bases for the price tradeoff decision.

• IDIQ Ceiling Rates: The proposed hourly labor rates will be evaluated for reasonableness to establish the binding maximum ceilings for any subsequent task orders issued under the IDIQ.

• Price Reasonableness and Realism: The Government will evaluate the proposed Firm-

Fixed-Price hourly labor rates, labor mix, and overall staffing hours against the SOW task areas to ensure the level of effort is realistic, balanced, and demonstrates a clear understanding of the evidence review requirements.

• Total Proposed Price: The total proposed price (Base plus all 4 Option Years and the mandatory $35,000.00 annual Government Travel NTE plug number) will be calculated to determine the overall Total Evaluated Price for reasonableness.

• Pricing Assumptions and Compliance: The Government reserves the right to reject any proposal containing unrequested pricing assumptions, exclusions, contingencies, alternative payment milestones, or open-market cost carve-outs that violate the mandatory Firm-Fixed-Price structure required by leadership. Proposals containing unauthorized pricing conditions may be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.