Attachment 3 _ 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services_9.18.2026.docx

52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

As prescribed in 12.301(c), the Contracting Officer may insert a provision substantially as follows:

Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and select the best-value Offeror using a Three-Phased evaluation approach under the commercial services procedures of FAR 52.212-2 “Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services”.

Volume 1 - Factor 1 – Technical Subfactor 1.a – Agile Implementation Plan Subfactor 1.b – Key Personnel Subfactor 1.c – Cybersecurity Compliance Gate Subfactor 1.d - Technical Demonstration and Agile Scenario (Live Orals) Subfactor 1.e- Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance (JIRA Demo) Subfactor 1.f - Proposed Performance Work Statement (PWS), CDRLs and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Subfactor 1.g – Transition Plan Compliance Matrix (Not Evaluated) Volume 2 - Factor 2 – OCI Mitigation Plan Volume 3 - Factor 3 – Price Evaluation Procedures: The evaluation phases are structured as follows:

· Phase I: Evaluates the written Agile Implementation Plan (Subfactor 1.a), Key Personnel (Subfactor 1.b), Cybersecurity Compliance Gate (Subfactor 1.c) (including the NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 gate), and the OCI Mitigation Plan (Factor 2) on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

· Phase II: Evaluates the Technical Demonstration and Agile Scenario (Live Orals) (Subfactor 1.d) and Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance (Subfactor 1.e) on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

· Phase III: Evaluates the proposed PWS, CDRLs, QASP (Subfactor 1.f), and the Transition Plan (Subfactor 1.g) on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, and the Price Proposal (Factor 3) in accordance with FAR 15.404 – Proposal Analysis.

*NOTE: “Advisory Down-Select notification”: The Government will contact those who are “unlikely to be a viable competitor and recommend they withdraw” after Phase I, and subsequently Phase II, to recommend that they withdraw their proposal from the competition. No formal down-select will be conducted. All applicable Offerors may compete in all Phases if they choose to do so. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, is rated "Acceptable" across all non-price factors and subfactors and represents the best value to the Government.

Relative Order of Importance:

Among the evaluation factors, all factors are considered to be of equal importance (Factor 1 (Technical), Factor 2 (OCI Mitigation Plan), and Factor 3 (Price)). The prospective awardee shall be determined to be the Offeror with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (as calculated in the provided Excel Pricing Model) that has received an “Acceptable” rating under all other Factors.

(b) PHASE I EVALUATION The Government will contact those Offerors who do not achieve an “Acceptable” Rating on all elements under Phase I and are determined “unlikely to be a viable competitor and recommend they withdraw” before proceeding to Phase II.

Volume 1: Factor 1 – Technical Subfactors (Phase I written submissions)

· Subfactor 1.a – Agile Implementation Plan The Government will evaluate the written Agile Implementation Plan (not to exceed 15 pages) on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. To be rated Acceptable, the plan must demonstrate an executable baseline across all of the following:

1. Cultural Change Management Strategy: Actionable methods for migrating the contractor's workforce to a cross-functional mindset. Furthermore, the strategy must explicitly outline the Offeror’s approach for driving cultural adoption and securing compliance from Government team members.

2. Dynamic Resource Allocation Mechanics: Clear operational triggers, workflows, and triage mechanics for reallocating cross-functional teams to meet emergent, high-priority demands across all ST3 program offices and directorates.

3. Backlog Prioritization and Sizing Strategy: The plan must explicitly detail the Offeror's repeatable strategy and methodology for collaborating with Government Product Owners to assign priority weights, and Level of Effort (LOE) estimates to incoming backlog tasks to ensure transparent planning and optimal capacity utilization.

4. Manpower Resource Efficiency: Specific strategies to eliminate resource idling ("bench time") and leverage multi-skilled professionals to maximize capacity pool productivity. The plan must clearly articulate how these efficiency strategies translate into a tangible, measurable benefit to the Government.

5. Commercial Business Model Application: Practical translation of commercial practices into a compliant Government operational model.

· Subfactor 1.b – Key Personnel The Government will evaluate the qualifications of an Agile Program Manager (APM) on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. To be rated Acceptable, the Offeror must:

Propose a qualified individual to serve as the Agile Program Manager. The APM shall be responsible for the overall contract effort, manage the capacity pool, and serve as the primary interface with Government leadership. Offerors shall submit a resume, not to exceed 3 pages, for the proposed APM. The resume must clearly demonstrate that the proposed individual meets or exceeds the required education, certifications, and technical experience necessary to successfully perform their designated role. The proposed APM must meet or exceed the following minimum qualifications:

1. Experience: Minimum of five (5) years of demonstrated program management experience leading Agile teams or managing cross-functional, capacity-based professional services contracts in either a federal or commercial environment, with at least three (3) of those years occurring within the past five (5) years. The resume should demonstrate experience scaling Agile practices across multiple teams while maintaining alignment with strategic goals.

2. Certifications: Must possess a current, recognized advanced Agile-specific credential.

3. Technical Competency: Proven, hands-on experience utilizing enterprise Agile management tools (Jira at a minimum) to track capacity, manage backlog workflows, forecast delivery velocity, and generate flow metrics and dashboards. The resume should demonstrate the specific metrics the proposed APM has historically used and how they used those metrics to pivot a failing project or improve team performance.

4. Clearance: Must be eligible for up to a Top Secret/SCI security clearance.

· Subfactor 1.c - Cybersecurity Compliance Gate NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 Assessment Score: Before the Offeror may participate in the live technical demonstration, have Phase II technical subfactors evaluated, or receive any Government provided data, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s cybersecurity compliance submission for the following capabilities:

Prerequisite for Government Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Data Release: To pass this entry gate and be eligible to receive the Government-provided data and Jira configuration/setting specifications, the Offeror and their affiliates must have a self-certified NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 assessment score of 110 (the maximum score indicating full implementation of all 110 security controls) active and posted in the DoD Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) as of the Phase II entry date.

1. 110-Score Requirement: Failure to possess a verified score of 110 in SPRS on the date of submission will result in an immediate "Non-Compliant" determination, and the Offeror will be ineligible to receive the Government data needed to participate in Phase II.

2. Flow-Down Mandate: This 110-Score requirement applies to the Prime Offeror, and all proposed subcontractors, teaming partners, or affiliates who will have access to Government-provided data or participate in contract performance.

3. Notice of Non-Compliance: Failure to possess a verified score of 110 in SPRS on the date of submission will result in an immediate "Non-Compliant" determination, and the Offeror will be ineligible to receive the Government data to participate. Proposals deemed non-compliant at this stage will be rejected in their entirety, as further evaluation is not possible.

Volume 2: Factor 2 – OCI Mitigation Plan The Government will evaluate the written Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan. To be rated Acceptable, the plan must completely identify any potential or actual OCIs associated with the performance of this requirement and propose mitigation strategies that successfully avoid, neutralize, or mitigate those conflicts in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5.

The OCI Mitigation Plan must specifically address and provide comprehensive mitigation strategies for the following three OCI categories:

1. Unequal Access to Information: Occurs when a contractor has access to non-public, sensitive, or proprietary information as part of its performance of a Government contract, and that information provides the contractor with an unfair competitive advantage in a later competition.

2. Biased Ground Rules: Occurs when a contractor, in the course of performance, drafts or influences specifications, Statements of Objectives (SOOs), Statements of Work (SOWs), Program Objective Memorandum (POM), or acquisition plans for a future procurement, thereby biasing the competition in favor of its own capabilities, tools, or those of an affiliate.

3. Impaired Objectivity: Occurs when a contractor’s work under one Government contract requires it to evaluate its own products, services, or performance (or those of a competitor, teammate, or affiliate) on another Government contract, thereby impairing its ability to render impartial, objective advice.

(c) PHASE II EVALUATION The Government Evaluation Team will evaluate Phase II submission on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis. The Offeror must receive an "Acceptable" rating on both parts to be determined “Compliant”. If an Offeror receives an Unacceptable rating in any area, that Offeror will be determined “Non-Compliant”, but the Offeror may choose to participate further in the competition at their own discretion.

Mandatory Verification Session: Prior to the oral presentation, the Government will conduct a mandatory Jira verification session with each Offeror to confirm environment compliance. Offerors whose configuration specifications do not match those provided by the Government will be determined “Non-Compliant”, but the Offeror may choose to participate further in the competition at their own discretion.

Evaluation of Part 1: Oral Presentation (Subfactor 1.d) Rating Definition: ACCEPTABLE under Subfactor 1.d – Technical Demonstration and Agile Scenario and Subfactor 1.e – Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Oral Presentation based upon how clearly and comprehensively it defines the Offeror’s approach to the following areas:

1. Resource Allocation & Dispersed Support (Subfactor 1.a/1.d): Provide a detailed strategy describing how it will provide appropriate and sufficient capacity to fulfill the requirements of the Government’s Statement of Objectives (SOO) and the Offeror’s proposed Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Offeror shall explicitly address its approach for resourcing a geographically dispersed locations to ensure uninterrupted, synchronized mission support.

2. Workforce Management & Backfill Speed (Subfactor 1.a/1.d): Demonstrate a comprehensive plan for recruiting and managing a qualified, large and geographically dispersed workforce. The plan shall detail the specific procedural pipeline used to backfill vacant positions as expeditiously as [possible, thereby preventing any degradation in sprint velocity and mission support

3. Retention & Turnover Mitigation (Subfactor 1.a/1.b): Clearly details a structured corporate incentive strategy to reduce turnover among specialized personnel, provides enforceable robust turnover mitigation strategies and contractual/corporate guarantees that ensure the Government’s APS requirements are met if specialized personnel depart.

4. Corporate Training Investment Protection (Subfactor 1.a/1.e): Clearly details a corporate-funded, domain-specific training framework that does not rely on Government funding

5. Cultural Change Management Strategy (Subfactor 1.a/1.d): Actionable methods for migrating to a cross-functional mindset and explicitly coaching/securing buy in from Government team members.

6. Operations & Multi-Level Interactions (Subfactor 1.a/1.d) : A logical framework for post-transition daily operations that details interactions across organizational, Project, Product, and team levels.

Rating Definition: UNACCEPTABLE under Subfactor 1.d – Technical Demonstration and Agile Scenario and Subfactor 1.e – Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance The Offeror relies on generic staffing platitudes, lacks a defined process for supporting geographically dispersed sites, provides no actionable strategy for obtaining buy in from Government personnel, fails to present a clear operational concept for multi-level interactions, or fails to provide corporate-funded training and turnover mitigation mechanisms to protect the Government's investment. The Offeror fails to demonstrate experience, examples, or provides generic lessons learned that have no practical, beneficial application to this contract.

Evaluation of Part 2: Jira Technical Demonstration (Subfactors 1.d & 1.e) Rating Definition: ACCEPTABLE under Subfactor 1.d – Technical Demonstration and Agile Scenario and Subfactor 1.e – Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s JIRA Technical Demonstration based upon how it clearly and comprehensively defines the Offeror’s approach to the following areas:

1. Cross-Functional Governance & Tool Utilization (Subfactor 1.e): Offeror presents a mature, practical "Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance" model appropriate to their business practices and actively navigates their live contractor-provided Jira environment to fluidly demonstrate how they track cross-functional talent capabilities, skill matrices, and capacity in real time, successfully validating the feasibility and operational readiness of the governance methodology proposed in their Phase I submission.

2. Multi-Level Dashboards & Metrics (Subfactor 1.d): Offeror actively utilizes their live contractor-provided Jira environment to fluidly demonstrate how they organize program data and visualize workflows through clear, fully configured, and role-based dashboards that effectively communicate actionable status, sprint velocity, cycle times, and capacity metrics tailored specifically to the executive (CPE), program management (PM/PL, PdM/PdL), and project-level (PdM/PdL) tiers.

3. Agile Implementation Approaches (Subfactor 1.d): Offeror conducts a thorough analysis of the Government-provided baseline data and presents three mature, data-driven approaches that provide tangible enhancements to the management of APS requirements, while actively demonstrating a clear, logical, and executable methodology within their live contractor-provided Jira environment to implement those proposed changes.

4. Live Scenario & Change Management (Subfactor 1.d & 1.e): The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s response to the live scenario injects to determine its capability to maintain uninterrupted contractual performance under dynamic operational changes. The evaluation will assess the effectiveness, clarity and completeness of the Offeror’s demonstrated approach in response to the scenario injects across one or more of the following:

a. Effectiveness in entering, sizing, and triaging requirements generated by each scenario inject.

b. Ability to reprioritize the backlog and adjust sprint or workflow plans using sound Agile practices.

c. Proficiency in coordination technical and functional resources to maintain operational continuity.

d. Execution of effective HR processes, including access management, onboarding/offboarding, and reassignment of labor resources.

e. Demonstrated adherence to labor category qualification and hiring requirement.

f. Demonstration of measures ensuring continuity of operations, including alternate tools, workflows and safeguards.

g. Demonstrated capability to maintain uninterrupted performance through effective communication protocols, risk mitigation, technical remediation, and workflow stabilization.

The Government will determine how well the Offeror’s demonstrated methods reflect a mature, resilient, and compliant operational environment capable of sustaining performance.

Rating Definition: UNACCEPTABLE under Subfactor 1.d – Technical Demonstration and Agile Scenario and Subfactor 1.e – Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance The Offeror fails to operate their Jira environment fluidly, fails to display multi-level role-based dashboards (CPE, PM/PL, PdM/PdL), lacks live tool-based talent tracking, or fails to present three actionable data-driven recommendations. The Offeror fails to effectively respond to the scenario injects and does not demonstrate the required capabilities. The Offeror is unable to enter, size, or triage injected requirements, does not reprioritize the backlog or adjust workflow plans, does not adequately orchestrate technical or functional resources, fails to execute effective HR actions or demonstrate compliance with labor category qualification requirements. Continuity‑of‑operations measures are not articulated or demonstrated, or the Offeror does not show how uninterrupted performance would be maintained through communication protocols, risk mitigation, technical remediation, or workflow stabilization. These deficiencies represent a high risk to the Government and indicate the Offeror cannot sustain contractual performance under dynamic operational changes.

Post-Demonstration Clarifications: Immediately following the 60-minute Technical Demonstration, the Government may conduct a Clarification Phase not to exceed 30 minutes. In accordance with FAR 15.306(a), these exchanges will be strictly limited to clarifying minor irregularities, ambiguities, or clerical errors observed during the live demonstration or within the submitted presentation materials.

· Under no circumstances will the Clarification Phase be used to permit the Offeror to cure material omissions, correct technical failures on the Pass/Fail checklist, or revise any portion of their proposed technical approach, staffing model, or pricing. The Government will not enter into formal discussions or negotiations during this phase. Failures to perform the required live Jira actions during the designated 60-minute demonstration window cannot be corrected during the Clarification Phase and will result in a rating of Unacceptable."

(d) PHASE III EVALUATION All Offerors that have been deemed “Compliant” and have not rescinded their proposals because of the “Advisory Down-Select notification” are eligible to submit final proposals for Phase III.

Volume 1: Factor 1 – Technical Subfactors (Phase III submissions)

· Subfactor 1.f – Proposed Performance Work Statement (PWS), CDRLs and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) The Government will evaluate the proposed PWS, CDRLs, and QASP to ensure they provide a binding, performance-based framework that satisfies the Statement of Objectives (SOO). To be rated Acceptable, the Offeror’s proposed documents must strictly adhere to the Government-furnished templates without altering standard administrative terms, clauses, or structure. The evaluation will focus on:

PWS Evaluation Criteria The Government will evaluate the contractor-developed PWS to verify that the Offeror has converted the Statement of Objectives (SOO), their Phase I Agile Implementation Plan, and their Phase II Oral Presentation into unambiguous, enforceable contractual requirements.

1. Traceability to SOO:

· Acceptable: The PWS establishes unambiguous, enforceable contractual requirements aligned to all sections of the SOO.

· Unacceptable: The PWS omits or does not address all sections of the SOO.

2. Traceability to Agile Implementation Plan:

· Acceptable: The PWS establishes unambiguous, enforceable contractual requirements aligned to the tasks, plans, and approaches detailed in the Offeror’s Agile Implementation Plan.

· Unacceptable: The PWS omits or does not adequately address the tasks, plans, and approaches of the Offeror’s Agile Implementation Plan.

3. Traceability to Oral Presentation:

· Acceptable: The PWS establishes unambiguous, enforceable contractual requirements aligned to the tasks, plans, and approaches detailed in the Offeror’s Oral Presentation PowerPoint document.

· Unacceptable: The PWS omits or does not address the tasks, plans, and approaches of the Offeror’s Oral Presentation PowerPoint document.

CDRL Evaluation Criteria The Government will evaluate the Offeror-completed DD Form 1423, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), to ensure all data deliverables are identified and aligned with the proposed PWS.

1. Completeness & PWS Traceability:

· Acceptable: The Offeror submits completed CDRLs for all four (4) required data items, and each CDRL is correctly and explicitly mapped to its corresponding PWS reference.

· Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to submit all four required CDRLs, or the CDRLs are not correctly mapped to their corresponding PWS sections.

2. Content Alignment:

· Acceptable: The content and description of each CDRL directly align with the requirements and deliverables specified in the corresponding PWS task.

· Unacceptable: The content of a CDRL is inconsistent with, omits, or does not address the requirements of the referenced PWS section.

QASP Evaluation Criteria The Government will evaluate the contractor-developed QASP to verify that it provides objective surveillance metrics, automated monitoring methods, and enforceable remedies.

1. Objective Standards & Numerical Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs):

· Acceptable: The QASP Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) table establishes specific, measurable, numerical AQL thresholds across all core PWS tasks.

· Unacceptable: The QASP utilizes subjective or unmeasurable standards or omits specific numerical AQL thresholds.

2. Automated Surveillance Integration:

· Acceptable: The QASP establishes automated surveillance protocols where Government monitoring is conducted primarily through direct, continuous access to the contractor-provided dashboard and portal.

· Unacceptable: The QASP requires the Government to perform surveillance solely through static monthly slide presentations or manual reports.

3. Workforce Availability & Rapid Backfill Surveillance:

· Acceptable: The QASP establishes a binding surveillance metric for dedicated Key Personnel availability and mandates a specific AQL requiring all vacated positions to be backfilled with fully qualified, LCAT-compliant personnel within 30calendar days of vacancy notification.

· Unacceptable: The QASP fails to set a binding numerical AQL for vacancy backfilling or allows critical labor category vacancies to persist beyond 30 calendar days without triggering a performance deficiency.

4. Financial Accuracy & FMS SLIN Segregation Auditability:

· Acceptable: The QASP establishes an AQL of 95% financial accuracy on monthly Consolidated Cost Reports, with an explicit 0% tolerance for misallocation or cross-charging between domestic CLINs and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) SLINs.

· Unacceptable: The QASP lacks surveillance metrics for FMS financial segregation; permits billing discrepancies less than 5%; and no greater than 0% for FMS, or omits auditable cost verification methods.

5. Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Remediation & Enforceable Remedies:

· Acceptable: The QASP defines a formal Corrective Action Plan (CAP) workflow triggered whenever performance drops below an established AQL. It binds the Contractor to a 5-Business Day deficiency cure period and outlines clear contractual remedies.

· Unacceptable: The QASP omits a defined CAP remediation process; fails to specify enforceable remedies for non-performance; or attempts to restrict Government rights.

Subfactor 1.g – Transition Plan The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submitted Transition Plan on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. To be rated "Acceptable," the plan must be detailed, executable, and demonstrate the Offeror's ability to assume full contractual responsibility within the specified timeframe without degrading mission support. An "Unacceptable" rating in any of the five areas below will render the entire Transition Plan, Unacceptable.

1. 90-Day Transition Schedule

· Acceptable: The plan includes a detailed, time-phased schedule that logically illustrates all major milestones, deliverables, and resource ramp-up activities to achieve Full Operational Capability (FOC) within the up to 90-day transition period.

· Unacceptable: The plan proposes a transition period that exceeds 90 days, or the schedule is not detailed, logical, or achievable.

2. Workforce Capture & Clearance Transition

· Acceptable: The plan details a clear, actionable process for recruiting, onboarding, and transferring incumbent personnel, and includes a specific verification method to ensure 100% of the workforce possesses the required security clearances and facility access approvals prior to Day 90.

· Unacceptable: The plan fails to provide a credible strategy to ensure 100% of the workforce is fully cleared and onboarded by Day 90, introducing significant performance and security risk.

3. Knowledge Transfer & Shadowing

· Acceptable: The plan outlines a structured knowledge acquisition process that includes, at a minimum, a schedule for shadowing incumbent personnel, a methodology for ingesting existing technical documentation, and a plan for integrating with Government teams to ensure a seamless transfer of all required knowledge.

· Unacceptable: The plan lacks a structured and executable knowledge transfer framework, relying on informal or ad-hoc methods that create a high risk of knowledge loss and operational disruption.

4. Live Dashboard, Account, & Facility Access Handover

· Acceptable: The plan provides clear, step-by-step protocols for the handover of the live dashboard, the joint inventory and transfer of all Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE), and the seamless assumption of 24/7/365 coverage of the TSMO SCIF at Redstone Arsenal, AL.

· Unacceptable: The plan fails to account for the seamless and uninterrupted handover of the live dashboard, GFE, or the 24/7/365 TSMO SCIF security requirement, creating a risk of mission degradation.

5. Risk Mitigation

· Acceptable: The plan identifies a minimum of three credible risks to the transition (e.g., clearance delays, knowledge gaps, system access issues) and proposes specific, actionable mitigation strategies to ensure zero degradation to ongoing CPE ST3 mission support.

· Unacceptable: The plan fails to identify relevant transition risks or provides only generic, non-actionable mitigation strategies, creating a substantial risk of performance degradation during the transition period

Volume 3 - Factor 3 – Price The Government will evaluate the Price Proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404 based on the Total Evaluated Price—for completeness, reasonableness, balance, and realism.

To be considered complete and compliant, the Offeror must populate the Government-furnished Pricing Workbook (provided as Attachment to this solicitation) in accordance with the following requirements:

1. Labor Category Cross-Reference (Mapping): The Offeror shall utilize the pricing workbook to map and cross-reference their proprietary commercial labor categories directly to the standard Labor Categories established by the Government.

2. Service Contract Act (SCA) Compliance: The Offeror must explicitly identify which of their proposed labor categories are Exempt and which are Non-Exempt from the Service Contract Act (SCA). For all Non-Exempt categories, the Offeror must verify and demonstrate that proposed pricing is compliant with the applicable regional Wage Determinations per the SCA.

3. Price Evaluation Criteria:

· Price Reasonableness: Proposed prices will be evaluated to ensure they are fair and reasonable, primarily determined through adequate price competition.

· Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are materially unbalanced.

· Price Realism: The Government will conduct a price realism analysis to assess whether proposed capacity-based prices are sufficiently realistic to recruit, retain, and sustainably deploy the required highly skilled, technical talent. Pricing that deviates significantly from the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) may trigger further scrutiny, and unrealistically low prices may lead to rejection.

· Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP is calculated within the Cost & Pricing Workbook. The TEP includes a standard Travel Cost and Labor Cost summation per period of performance: 6-month Agile Development and Transition Period; (4) 12-month Options, and 6-month Enterprise Performance and Transition Option plus the 6-month Option to Extend the Terms of Service for a total of 66-months.

(e) Non-Compliant Proposals: A proposal shall be deemed "Non-Compliant" (and will be excluded from further evaluation and competition) if it fails to submit sufficient, clear, and complete documentation for any evaluation factor or sub-factor identified herein, in accordance with the instructions provided in FAR Provision 52.212-1.

(f) Debriefing. If a post-award debriefing is given to requesting Offerors, the Government shall disclose the following information, if applicable:

(1) The agency’s evaluation of the significant weak or deficient factors in the debriefed Offeror’s offer.

(2) The overall evaluated cost or price and technical rating of the successful and the debriefed Offeror and past performance information on the debriefed Offeror.

(3) The overall ranking of all Offerors, when any ranking was developed by the agency during source selection.

(4) A summary of the rationale for award;

(5) For acquisitions of commercial products, the make and model of the product to be delivered by the successful Offeror.

(6) Reasonable responses to relevant questions posed by the debriefed Offeror as to whether source-selection procedures set forth in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed by the agency.

(End of provision)