Attachment 20 Section M Evaluation Basis for Award 20230327.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FA670323R0001

Attachment 19 27 March 2023

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 EVALAUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

M1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a Performance-Price Trade-Off (PPT) source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) Acquisition Regulations at https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations.

While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process. Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the factors and subfactors contained in this solicitation.

The Government reserves the right to:

a) Award a contract or make no award depending upon the quality and/or affordability of proposals received in response to the solicitation;

b) Reject proposals which, upon initial review, are deemed substantially noncompliant with the proposal requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP);

c) Conduct discussions if needed. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as technically acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined incomplete, unfair and unreasonable, unbalanced, and/or unrealistic (if necessary) causing the proposal to be ineligible for award; and/or

d) Award without conducting discussions.

M1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for Dobbins Base Operations Support (BOS) services as a result of this solicitation to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, including the terms and conditions, representations, certifications, PWS requirements, and all other information required by Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, of this solicitation and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

The Service Contract Labor Standards and Construction Wage Rate Worksheets shall be incorporated as Attachment 4, “Contractor’s Name” Rates, into the contract.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

27 March 2023

M1.3 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1, Technical, Factor 2, Past Performance, Factor 3, Price, Contract Documentation or any combination thereof. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions, or prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request. In addition, the contracting officer (CO) may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, Preaward Debriefing of Offerors.

Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s demonstrated ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. The Government will evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation. For the purposes of efficiency and IAW FAR 15.306(c), Exchange with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, Competitive Range; the CO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition for this Performance-Price Trade-off source selection. If the CO determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of an elimination decision will be provided to unsuccessful offeror(s) in accordance with FAR 15.503, Notifications to Unsuccessful Offerors.

M1.4 Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. The Government will only evaluate one (1) proposal from each offeror. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price, technical, and past performance standpoint. Offerors should not assume they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss, and/or revise their proposals. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the PCO to be necessary (see Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors).

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

M1.5 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

27 March 2023

Offerors shall provide the information described in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations, certifications, and PWS requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the solicitation requirements may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation requirements and provide complete supporting rationale in the Contract Documentation Volume.

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

NOTE: No changes or modifications shall be made outside of the instructions provided to the solicitation or its attachment(s). Any such changes or modifications will be rejected and render the proposal ineligible for award

M2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

M2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

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

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

M2.1.1 Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Phase-In Approach Subfactor 2: Program Management Approach Subfactor 3: Technical Approach Subfactor 4: Mission Essential Continuation Plan Subfactor 5: Crisis Management Plan Scenario

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

M2.1.2 Relative Importance of Factors

The evaluation may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and subfactors and the SSA reasonably determines superior past performance, of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The Government will not award a contract to an offeror that receives a Performance Confidence Assessment rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.” The source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process.

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

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

27 March 2023

M2.2 Evaluation Methodology

Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. A contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 as supplemented. The Government will evaluate competitive proposals that conforms to the solicitation requirements using the following procedures:

1) Each responsive proposal received will be ranked by price from lowest to highest;

2) No more than five (5) lowest price proposals will be evaluated for Price to ensure it is complete, fair and reasonable, balanced and realistic (if necessary);

3) Beginning with the lowest price proposal that has been determined to be complete, fair and reasonable, balanced and realistic (if necessary) will be evaluated for Technical;

4) If the lowest priced proposal is assigned a Technical Rating of “Acceptable,” that proposal will be evaluated for Past Performance. If the lowest priced proposal receives a “Substantial Confidence”, the past performance evaluation stops because they represent the best value for the government;

5) If the lowest priced proposal is not assigned a Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of “Substantial Confidence,” the next lowest priced proposal will be evaluated, and the process will continue until a proposal is assigned a “Substantial Confidence” Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating or until all proposals are evaluated. If the lowest priced proposal is assigned a Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower, the Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

VOLUME I. CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

Offerors are required to submit and meet all solicitation requirements, including the terms and conditions, representations, certifications, and PWS requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to submit and meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation and provided complete supporting rationale in the Contract Documentation Volume. Each exception cites a PWS paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation of which the exception took. The rationale supports the exception and fully explained its impact on performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

VOLUME II. TECHNICAL

The offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

27 March 2023 shall address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

A Technical Rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be assigned to each technical subfactor 1 thru 5 in accordance with Table 1, Technical Ratings. Any technical subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions (if opened) and will not be considered for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically “Acceptable,” either initially or as a result of discussions (if opened), will be considered for award.

Table 1. Technical Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Subfactor 1: Phase-In Approach

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written phase-in approach adequately integrates with the existing service provider (see Attachment 21) during the 60-day phase-out period to accomplish all areas identified in PWS A.11.1. The written plan includes a realistic phase-in schedule with graph/chart which incorporates the following: (1) the establishment of the Project Management Office (PMO), and recruitment, retainment, and hiring necessary personnel; (2) process to obtain all required certifications and clearances, including personnel security clearances; (3) the development of a systematic and disciplined approach to achieve an efficient and effective transition; (4) participation and performance plan of joint (Government, incumbent KTR, and/or successor KTR) inventories and sign for Government property;

(5) the development and submission all required contract deliverables; (6) process to attend post-award meetings as required; (7) a development process to accomplish PWS required training prior to contractor performance start date, and (8) procedures to obtain vehicles, equipment, tools, supplies, materials, and other items necessary to perform day-to-day BOS operations in place of the Government Furnished Property listed in Attachment 3.

Subfactor 2: Program Management Approach

This subfactor is met when the offeror submits a written narrative that demonstrates a sound and thorough plan which clearly outlines their management approach to meeting each tab of the PWS. This includes: (1) a strategy that addresses coverage of Key Personnel positions with trained, qualified and/or certified personnel; (2) a description of the proposed roles and responsibilities, to include position qualifications/descriptions for each organizational element (i.e., work center or shop); (3) an Organizational Chart; (4) plans for staff cross-utilization as well as your staffing plans for one-deep positions meeting changed, unscheduled, urgent, and surge requirements; (5) strategy for the continuous recruitment, retention, training and retaining of a qualified/certified and capable workforce;

(6) a cross-reference matrix which includes a description of subcontractor teaming arrangements or joint ventures that addresses organizational relationships and responsibility divisions between the prime contractor and subcontractor(s) as applicable.

Subfactor 3: Technical Approach: This subfactor is met when the offeror submits a written narrative

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

27 March 2023 by tab that adequately describes its approach based on its ability to apply reasonable methods and techniques to accomplish the full range of tasks in the PWS.

Tab B, Materiel Management: a description of how the offeror will provide material support for worldwide, wartime, and peacetime readiness mission requirements this includes providing supplies and equipment support for on-station and deployed aircraft, other transient aircraft, issue mobility bags and weapons to deploying personnel, and provide training to Supply Reservist and Logistics Readiness Office;

Tab C, Vehicle Management & Ground Transportation: a description of how the offeror will provide an effective accountability, management, and maintenance services for the base vehicle fleet, tenant organization vehicles, selected registered, and non-registered equipment, and transient vehicle;

Tab D, Traffic Management Operations: a description of how the offeror will provide a full range of traffic management services for base organizations, to include day-to-day, exercise and contingency operations;

Tab F, Real Property Maintenance: a description of how the offeror will provide an approach for preventive maintenance (PM) and corrective maintenance (CM) work tasks (WT) for facility maintenance for all real property, and Real Property Installed Equipment (RPIE);

Tab G, Fuels Management: a description of how the offeror will provide a safe, accurate, and timely receipt, storage, transfer, issue, and accountability of all Defense Wide Working Capital Fund (DWWCF)-owned petroleum products and cryogenic products under their control.

Subfactor 4: Mission Essential Services Continuation Plan

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

Subfactor 5: Crisis Management Scenario

This subfactor is met when the offeror submits a written plan using the Mission Essential Services Continuation Plan in subfactor 4 and the organizational chart in subfactor 2 that successfully adapts to the following scenario with as little as 72-hours notification while continuing to meet contract performance standards emphasis

VOLUME III. PAST PERFORMANCE

Evaluation Process

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

27 March 2023

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

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to: Contractor Performance Acquisition Retrieval System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Document Access (EDA), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, COs, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

Ordering Type Contracts Submission

In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e., a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, Instructions, conditions, and Notices to Offerors Volume II – Past Performance paragraph L4.3.4, if the contract submitted for evaluation is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror shall submit the individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

Series of Orders

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

The Government will add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

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

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

CAUTION: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror’s POC provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

27 March 2023

Relevancy Assessment

Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort described in the RFP. For each Past Performance effort submitted (no more than five (5) contracts), relevancy will be determined by the similarity to the scope, complexity, and magnitude of effort of the Offeror’s performance. Relevancy will be assigned a rating outlined in Table 2, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Performance efforts that do not meet the relevancy criteria will not be further evaluated.

Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Ratings Description

Very Relevant

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

Relevant

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant

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

Table 3: Relevancy Definitions

Assessment Area

Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat Relevant

Not Relevant

Scope

The past performance contract effort reflects experience in the performance in ALL five (5) areas of the PWS:

Tabs B, C, D, F, and G.

The past performance contract effort reflects experience in the performance in four (4) areas of the PWS -. Tab F and any combination of three (3) other areas: Tabs B, C, D, and/or G.

The past performance contract effort reflects experience in the performance in at least three (3) areas of the PWS – Tab F, and any combination of two (3) other areas: Tabs B, C, D, and/or G

The past performance contract effort reflects experience in the performance of less than three

(3) areas of the PWS – any combination of, Tabs B, C, D, F, and/or G.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

27 March 2023

Complexity

The past performance contract effort(s) Reflects experience in the concurrent performance of ALL four (4) areas of listed in Table 3.1., Scope Relevancy Matrix.

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

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

Magnitude of Effort

The past performance contract effort(s) reflects performance on contracts/task orders/job orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined performed value of equal to or greater than $7M within a 12-month period.

The past performance contract effort(s) reflects performance on contracts/task orders/job orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined performed value of equal to $6M but less than $7M within a 12-month period.

The past performance contract effort(s) reflects performance on contracts/task orders/job orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined performed value of equal to $5M but less than $6M within a 12-month period.

The past performance contract effort(s) reflects performance on contracts/task orders/job orders concurrently or consecutively with a combined performed value of less than $5M within a 12-month period.

Table 3.1 Relevancy Complexity Matrix – Areas of Past Performance

1. Experience managing a workforce of more than 50 personnel with varying skill sets.

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

3. Experience providing day-to-day operations while responding to Natural Disaster/Crisis Action and/or surge situations without operational degradation.

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

Performance Quality Assessment

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

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 teaming partners and significant contractors.

The assessment may include adverse information. Adverse is defined as past performance that supports an unsatisfactory or marginal rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment.

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

Past Performance Evaluation Confidence Ratings:

The Government will evaluate past performance and assign an overall confidence rating outlined in Table 4, Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, based on all the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract.

The relevancy rating will be based on the scope, complexity, and magnitude of effort of up to five (5) recent contracts. As a result of the relevancy assessments and the quality of reported performance of the recent efforts evaluated, offerors will receive a past performance confidence rating at the factor level as outlined in Table 4, Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, below.

Table 4: Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Adjectival Ratings Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

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

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

No Confidence

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

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

VOLUME III. PRICE

CLIN Schedule Review

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

The Government will evaluate the price data submitted per Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, (Attachment 4, ITO Pricing Workbook), using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine the price is complete, fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic (if necessary). The proposed prices shall be based on the Offeror’s own technical approach submitted in Volume 1, Technical and the Government’s PWS requirements. The offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated for completeness, fair and reasonableness, balance, and realism (if necessary) as identified in paragraphs below. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with Total Evaluated Price paragraph, below.

Completeness

For completeness, offerors must provide all unit prices and extended prices for each CLIN that requires proposed pricing in the CLIN Schedule. Incomplete proposals (without required prices) shall render an offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

Fair and Reasonableness

Offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated to ensure the final, agreed-to price is fair and reasonable.

Price reasonableness is normally established through adequate price competition but may also be determined through price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, may be required to support the proposed price.

Balance

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for balance IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), Proposal Analysis Techniques, Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstate or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in the schedule of the solicitation.

Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Realism

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

Total Evaluated Price

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of all prices provided in the SF 33, section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost, and Attachment 4, ITO Pricing Workbook. The offeror’s proposed price will be reviewed for compliance with the instructions provided in Attachment 4.

NOTE: Attachment 4, ITO Pricing Workbook, will automatically calculate the TEP based on Offerors' inputs. Offerors are to verify the proposed prices are calculated correctly.

The total evaluated price will be the sum of the evaluated prices for the base year, all option years, and the six (6) month extension as follows:

Total Evaluated Price = (Base Year CLINs 0001 – 0014, 0018-0019) + (Option Year One CLINS 1001 – 1014, 1018) + (Option year Two CLINs 2001 – 2014, 1018) + (Option year Three CLINs 3001 – 3014, 3018) + (Option Year Four CLINs 4001 – 4014, 4018) + (Option Year Five CLINs 5001 – 5014, 5018).

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s price of the six (6) month extension IAW FAR 52.217- 8, Option to Extend Services.

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

(End of Section)