Attachment_3_Addendum_52.212-2_ITA.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Award will be made to Offeror(s) who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced Offerors.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) SubPart 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 01 April 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

These regulations are available electronically at the AF Federal Acquisition Regulation site, https://www.acquisition.gov/.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

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

1.3. Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, IAW FAR 15.306(c). As part of the competitive range determination, the Government will consider the correction potential of any technical proposal, including any aspect evaluated as a deficiency. The correction potential is based on the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirements. During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(d)(5). The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm https://www.acquisition.gov/

Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2). If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.4. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially.

However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if Offerors will be required to include EN responses in the FPR. The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how Offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request draft FPRs during discussions. If a request for FPR is issued, Offeror responses to ENs for Volume I (Technical), Volume III (Price), and Volume IV (Contract Documentation) must be incorporated in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.5. Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned. The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer.

If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal.

1.6. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and instructions required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation, Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal

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

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1 - Contractor Qualifications Subfactor 2 - ITA Development and Support

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

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

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price).

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each Offeror in determining the competitive range. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which Offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

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

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor One: Contractor Qualifications

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Contractor Qualifications approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

a. General Requirements. The approach must ensure the Offeror can successfully design and manufacture an Interface Test Adapter (ITA) and assess UUTs or UUT dimensions at Offeror and Government locations.

b. Quality Certification. To be acceptable, the Offeror must possess an ISO 9001:2015 certificate, or an equivalent certificate.

c. Specific Requirements. The approach must ensure the Offeror can successfully mark and label ITAs IAW the SOW. Also, the proposed Preliminary Design Review (PDR) must meet requirements of and the proposed Critical Design Review (CDR) must meet requirements of the SOW.

2.2.2. Subfactor Two: ITA Development and Support

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Resource Management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

a) Design Development Offeror shall provide an approach which addresses:

• how the Offeror will interface with, and deliver to, three different government locations

• key personnel working with Government points of contact

• the assumptions and risks associated with connectors, electro-mechanical fixturing, and internal wiring that the Offeror would consider when responding to a delivery order

• handling a request for a Government Directed Change (GDC) which occurs between

Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review for an Interface Test Adapter design, and shall describe how the Offeror will incorporate the GDC into the design process and how it will impact the completion of the design

• an approach to develop a technical data package for ITAs from GFI and Offeror measurements, to include the design tools (including software) used.

The Government does not require a response to a specific delivery order. The Offeror’s plan shall include a general approach to designing and manufacturing an ITA utilizing measurements taken from a UUT or UUT dimensional drawings.

b) Manufacturing and Acceptance Test The Offeror shall provide an approach which addresses how the Offeror will build and deliver a full scale working model ITA prototype. The Offeror shall also provide an approach to develop, gain approval, and perform an acceptance test on an Interface Test Adapter, to include a description of the data, documentation and equipment used to perform the test. The acceptance test approach must address the specifications of paragraph 3.4 of MIL-PRF-32070A.

c) Technical Orders and Provisioning The Offeror shall provide an approach which describes:

• how the Offeror will develop and deliver new Test Procedures Manual (TPM) Technical Orders (TOs) for test programs provided by the Government including the design tools and process

• change pages to TPM TOs including the development of a change page and design tools

• an approach to develop and deliver new ITA Operation and Maintenance (O&M) TOs with Illustrated Parts Breakdown (IPB) for the hardware provided by the Government, including the process to develop an O&M TO and the design tools

• an approach to provide an updated technical data package which incorporates engineering changes from the Government, including the key personnel and design tools that will be used

• an approach to submit Provisioning Technical Documentation (PTD) to the Government, including the format of the PTD

• an approach to develop and deliver Engineering Data for Provisioning, including the process used to develop the data and the design tools used

• an approach to document and submit Support Equipment Recommendation Data (SERD), including the consideration of life cycle cost, schedule and the formatting

2.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance

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

2.3.1. Ratings

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

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all Offerors rated as “Substantial Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.

2.3.2. Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less recent performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s past performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance.

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

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

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

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

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

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

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

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

NO CONFIDENCE

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

contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2. Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the technical subfactors and price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s), as defined in paragraph 4.3 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

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

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

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

RELEVANT

(R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

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

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

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the Enterprise Interface Test Adapter and Related Test Equipment requirement. Consideration may be given to the following ITA design and manufacture (in order of greater relevancy to least relevancy) when determining past performance:

1. Air Force ITA Contracts

2. Department of Defense (other than Air Force) ITA Contracts

3. Commercial ITA Contracts

Further consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy:

1. Number of components and connections in the design (e.g. whole engines with all components, major modules, individual components)

2. Level of Support

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the proposed requirement.

Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

1. Quantity of ITAs designed and manufactured per year

2. Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform

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

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the Enterprise ITA and Related Test Equipment requirement.

2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) (including ratings and supporting narratives), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information which the Government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

(BLUE)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

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

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

UNKNOWN (UK)

(WHITE)

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

2.3.3. Assigning Ratings:

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

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Substantial, Satisfactory, or Limited Confidence, may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral Confidence rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4. Factor 3 – Price

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

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

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all Offerors that are found technically acceptable. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in ITO Attachment 3.1, ITA Pricing Matrix and will be evaluated based upon the TEP. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.4.6 below. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The evaluation quantities reflect Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs) based on historical data and future projected requirements. However, these quantity estimates are solely for evaluation of proposed pricing and do not represent actual contract quantities after contract award. The Government shall not be held in any way to these evaluation quantities during contract performance. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this section. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The TEP tab of the ITA Pricing Matrix automatically calculated the TEP based on prices provided by the Offeror multiplied by the BEQ provided by the Government.

2.4.1. Completeness

Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and compliance. Offerors shall complete the ITA Pricing Matrix, ITO Attachment 3.1. This includes five (5) one-year periods. Any omission of required pricing may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. Offerors must ensure all required proposed pricing is provided in the matrix. All periods of performance must be priced.

2.4.2. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other techniques as needed. Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and compliance with addendum to FAR 52.212-1, para 5.2.1. Incomplete proposals will be considered unawardable.

2.4.3. Balance

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced.

Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. Balanced pricing is determined with respect to separately priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) or SubCLINs or significant unexplained variance within one CLIN’s pricing from year to year. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.4.4. Price Realism

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

2.4.5. Data Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

2.4.6. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of prices provided in the ITA Pricing Matrix, ITO Attachment 3.1. The ITA Pricing Matrix spreadsheet will calculate the Offeror’s TEP which is used as the basis for proposed pricing. Proposed unit prices will be input into the spreadsheet by Offerors and extended pricing will be calculated based on estimated evaluation quantities provided by the Government. Evaluation quantities in the tables below are for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government in any way.

The Offeror’s pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Addendum to 52.212-1, ITO pricing instructions. Proposed pricing shall be provided in the Pricing Matrix cells designated for proposed unit prices per CLIN/SubCLIN. Unit prices for all performance periods shall be provided in the Pricing Matrix spreadsheet. Spreadsheet formulas will calculate extended evaluated pricing based on multiplication of unit prices by evaluation quantities estimated by the Government.

For CLINS x001 through x012 and CLIN x014, unit prices will be proposed by the contractor for each performance period. The proposed unit prices will be multiplied by the best estimated quantities for these CLINs.

Extended pricing for all years of contract performance will be summed to yield the total evaluated pricing for each CLIN. All years of performance will be included in the TEP.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Similarly, quantities used in the Pricing Matrix are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent future purchase quantities or obligate the Government whatsoever.

2.4.7. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing If price assumptions are utilized in the development of proposed pricing, evaluation will include review of supporting data and estimating methodology to support reasonableness. All price assumptions (including indirect rates for the Offeror’s appropriate accounting period, volume or location discounts), scope limitations and/or qualifications of the pricing proposal will be reviewed.

2.4.8. Annual Price Changes

Information to support reasonableness of proposed pricing is required including supporting data and estimating methodology to support price reasonableness. All cost assumptions (including indirect rates for the Offeror’s appropriate accounting period, volume or location discounts), scope limitations and/or qualifications of the pricing proposal shall be addressed and explained.

If no assumptions/limitations/qualifications then state accordingly in the price volume.

2.4.9. Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the price volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified cost or pricing data as believed necessary to support, justify or clarify their proposed pricing. All information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing.

2.4.10. Submission of Price Matrix

Submit the electronically encoded Pricing Matrix in support of the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The unit prices submitted in the Pricing Matrix must be input as total dollars.

Pricing Matrix proposed pricing submitted must be consistent with your approved estimating system. The Pricing Matrix submitted must comply with the following format requirements:

(a) Data file shall be submitted IAW paragraph 2.6.

(b) Data file should be .XLS file format (MS-Excel 2016 or earlier) compatible format.