Attachment 3 - Evaluation Factors for Award (MECS2).pdf

FA2541-25-R-B005

RFP Attachment 3 – Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR THE

United States Marine Corps

(USMC) Enterprise Commercial

Satellite Services (MECS2)

Contract Vehicle

Solicitation # FA2541-25-R-B005

07 MAR 2025

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BASIS FOR AWARD…………………………………………………………………………………….…...1

NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED………………………………………………………

DISCUSSIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………….……1

EXCLUSION OF GROSSLY DEFICIENT

PROPOSALS……………………………………………………

CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF

PROPOSALS……………………………………………………………………….…..ERROR!

BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS…………………………………………………………………………...…..…..2

2.1 TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT ACCEPTABILITY………………………………………………………...…..3

2.1.1 Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach…………………………………………4

Subfactor 1: Transponded Space Segment Coverage……….……………………………...…4

Subfactor 2: Managed Services………………………………………………………..….5

Subfactor 3: Infrastructure Worldwide Internet Protocol (IP) Reach-back Service………………...6

Subfactor 4: Bandwidth Manager………………………………………………………

Subfactor 5: Managed Services Manager……...…………...……………………………

Subfactor 6: Bandwidth Management Reporting Tool.……………………………………….7

Subfactor 7: Information Assurance……………………………………..………………

Subfactor 8: Managed Service Equipment………...………………………….……….…….8

Subfactor 9: Transition Support………….…………………………………………....…….9

2.2 PAST PERFORMANCE

2.3 PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR……………………………

2.3.1 Completeness………………………………………………………………………

2.3.2 Unbalanced Pricing………………………………………………………………

2.3.3 Price Reasonableness…………………………………………………….…………10

2.3.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP).……………………………………………………….10

Page ii

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a full and open competition conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15. The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will make a responsibility determination IAW FAR 9.104-1 as supplemented, after the evaluation of proposals to determine whether an Offeror is eligible for contract award.

Any contractor on the Space Contractor Responsibility Watch List (CRWL), Section

1501 of National Defense Authority Act (NDAA) for FY 2025, must seek a determination from the Space Acquisition Executive (SAE) before it can be awarded a contract.

The Government seeks to award to the offeror who provides the Space Force the best value as defined by the tradeoff methodology explained herein. The Decision Authority (DA) will base the award decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all evaluation criteria in the RFP utilizing a best value tradeoff selection process. The tradeoff methodology allows for a tradeoff between technical/management approach, cost/price, and past performance.

Source Selection procedures will be conducted in accordance with FAR subpart 15.3.

NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to make a single award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) contract as a result of this RFP to the best qualified Offeror. The Government reserves the right to award no contract as a result of this RFP.

DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions; the right to conduct clarifications is reserved IAW FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Furthermore, it is essential that all requirements of the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) are met. Failure to comply with the instructions and/or the terms and conditions of the proposal request may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions, offeror(s) will be notified by the CO in writing. If discussions are held, they may address any aspects of the proposal, including, but not limited to: technical/management, price and any other matter in the evaluation process. Proposal changes resulting from discussions shall be submitted as change pages within a final proposal revision IAW FAR 15.307. Furthermore, the Government is under no obligation to review or evaluate any unsolicited proposal revisions.

EXCLUSION OF GROSSLY DEFICIENT PROPOSALS

The Government may reject any proposal from this competition prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to address the requirements of the solicitation.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

By submission of an offer, the offeror accedes to all proposal request requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and all technical requirements included in this solicitation, inclusive of all attachments in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and subfactors.

The Technical and Management Volume and its combined subfactors are of greatest importance followed by the Cost/Price Volume, then Past Performance. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an acceptable rating in every non-price factors.

In order to be considered awardable, there must be an acceptable rating in all non-price factors. A tradeoff may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the DA reasonably determines that the technical and management approach of the higher price offer outweighs the Price difference. The Government reserves the right to award to a higher priced offeror if that offeror’s proposal is determined to represent the best value to the Government.

Risk is defined as the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement.

The proposals will be evaluated against the following specific factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach

Subfactor 1: Transponded Space Segment Coverage, Performance Work

Statement (PWS) 2.1.1.

Subfactor 2: Managed Services, Performance Work Statement (PWS) 2.2

Subfactor 3: Infrastructure Worldwide Internet Protocol (IP) Reach-back Service, Performance Work Statement (PWS) 2.3

Subfactor 4: Bandwidth Manager, Performance Work Statement (PWS) 2.4.1

Subfactor 5: Managed Services Manager, Performance Work Statement (PWS)

2.4.2

Subfactor 6: Bandwidth Management Reporting Tool, Performance Work

Statement (PWS) 2.4.3.

Subfactor 7. Task 7: Information Assurance (IA), (PWS) Task 7.

Subfactor 8. Task 8: Managed Service Equipment, (PWS) Task 8.

Subfactor 9: Transition Support, Performance Work Statement (PWS) 2.4.4.

Factor 2: Past Performance

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These shall be combined to establish a performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy

(including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). All three aspects must be considered for each of the contracts or requirements evaluated.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305[a][2][iv]). In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of

“Neutral.”

Factor 3: Cost/Price

The offeror's cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and complete; a color rating is not assigned to the cost/price factor. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. The Government will determine completeness of the offeror's proposal by verifying that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and costs are presented in a clear and useful format. The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis of the offeror's proposed price if deemed necessary. The technical and management approach evaluation factors, when combined, are more important than the Price

Factor. The Price Factor is more important than Past Performance.

2.1 TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT ACCEPTABILITY

During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign a rating as defined in the following table. Each offeror’s technical/management proposal will be evaluated to determine if the offeror provides an sound approach that meets the subfactor criteria. The Government must be assured that each offeror has the ability to perform--and will perform--all the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Sound technical/management responses will demonstrate the offeror’s competence for providing support for all subfactor criteria. Any proposed technical and management innovations must be executable and not in violation of any

DoD or USSF procedures or regulations.

Any technical and management subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be

“Acceptable”, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

However, the offeror is reminded the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposals, as received, without discussions.

The following rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technical and management capability:

The following rating definitions will be used in the assessment of Factor 1: Subfactor 7, Subfactor 8 and Subfactor 9 Technical and Management Capability ONLY:

Technical/Management Approach

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The following rating definitions will be used in the assessment of Factor 1: Subfactor 1, Subfactor 2, Subfactor 3, Subfactor 4, Subfactor 5 and Subfactor 6 Technical and Management

Capability ONLY:

Subfactors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are of equal importance.

Color

Rating

Adjectival Rating Description (Technical and Management Approach

Rating Method)

BLUE

OUTSTANDING

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

PURPLE

GOOD

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

GREEN ACCEPTABLE

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

RED

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

2.1.1 Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach

A. Technical/Management Approach:

The following Technical/Management Approach Factor 1 Subfactors are listed below.

1. Subfactor 1: Transponded Space Segment Coverage, Performance Work Statement

(PWS) Paragraph 2.1.1.

The offeror’s solution will be evaluated based on how well it addresses the offeror’s ability to create and deliver a complete, efficient, resilient, and adequate transponded space segment solution that meets or exceeds PWS Paragraph 2.1 requirements.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s holistic methodology, and the extent to which the offeror’s demonstrated approach provides:

1. Space Segment Coverage (PWS 2.1.1)

a. The offeror shall describe how they will provide global space segment coverage to meet requirements in accordance with PWS 2.1.1.

b. The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to meet STO 1 space segment coverage requirements by providing within their technical proposal:

i. Elevation angles, effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP), and satellite system gain to noise temperature ratio coverage (G/T) coverage maps with clearly depicted and labeled contour lines with values for each required region and frequency band. Coverage maps may be submitted as an attachment.

ii. Overall graphical representation of the transponded bandwidth service area supporting STO 1 based on satellite and terminal characteristics.

2. Space Segment Capacity (PWS 2.1.2)

a. The offeror shall describe how they will provide global space segment capacity to meet requirements in accordance with PWS 2.1.2.

b. The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to meet STO 1 space segment capacity requirements by providing within their technical proposal:

i. Details of lease sizes for each proposed satellite and beam.

ii. Supporting documentation in accordance with solicitation requirements to be evaluated for completeness and alignment with the technical solution proposed. Should there be a conflict between the supporting documentation (e.g. amount of leased capacity) versus the proposed solution, the supporting documentation will take precedence and shall be evaluated accordingly.

3. Space Segment Quality (PWS 2.1.3)

a. The offeror shall describe how they will provide global space segment quality to meet requirements in accordance with PWS 2.1.3.

b. The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to meet STO 1 space segment quality requirements by providing within their technical proposal:

i. The offeror shall submit link budgets in accordance with PWS

Subsection 2.1 Transponded Space Segment, STO 1 and PWS

Appendix A Technical Specification.

ii. Link margins both exceeding 1 dB and adequate to overcome degradation caused by intermodulation, interference, rain, atmospheric impairments, and other propagation effects as well as antenna pointing errors and collateral degradations, for the entirety of the coverage area.

iii. Description of link analysis quality, link efficiency and link optimization in Space Segment planning and link engineering which minimizes the operational risk of factors such as limited coverage, end of satellite station keeping and potential future bandwidth porting activities.

iv. Details for each proposed satellite that shall include satellite launch date, satellite health, and estimated end of station keeping life. For any satellites proposed that will exceed 15 years of station kept life during the base year of this contract, risk assessments shall be conducted as part of the technical evaluation.

Measure of Merit: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s technical solution demonstrates a sound, complete, adequate, and flexible plan to meet or exceed the requirements outlined in PWS.

2. Subfactor 2: Managed Services, Performance Work Statement (PWS) Paragraph 2.2

The offeror’s solution will be evaluated based on how well it addresses the offeror’s ability to create and deliver a complete, efficient, resilient, and adequate managed services solution that meets or exceeds PWS Paragraph 2.2 requirements.

1. Managed Service Solutions (PWS 2.2.1)

a. The offeror shall describe how they will provide global managed service solutions to meet requirements in accordance with PWS 2.2.1.

b. The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to meet STO 2 managed service solutions requirements by providing within their technical proposal:

i. Overall graphical representation of the managed service coverage area supporting STO 2 based on satellite and terminal characteristics.

ii. Capacity lease options for limited and unlimited data.

iii. Minimum and proposed throughput options for Committed

Information Rates (CIR) and Maximum Information Rates (MIR)

2. Required Services Protection (PWS 2.2.2)

a. The offeror shall describe how they will provide requires services protection of user data to meet requirements in accordance with PWS 2.2.1.

b. The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to meet STO 2 required services protection of user data requirements by providing within their technical proposal:

i. Network Protection features to implement and support transmission security objectives

ii. Encryption standards of managed service offering

iii. Description of terminal ID obfuscation

iv. Description of key management, generation, and distribution

3. Subfactor 3: Infrastructure Worldwide Internet Protocol (IP) Reach-back Service, Performance Work Statement (PWS) Paragraph 2.3

The offeror’s solution will be evaluated based on how well it addresses the offeror’s ability to create and deliver a complete, efficient, resilient, and adequate World-wide Reachback infrastructure solution that meets or exceeds PWS Paragraph 2.3 requirements. The offeror shall describe how much infrastructure is already in place, how much infrastructure needs to be upgraded, and how much infrastructure needs to be added.

1. Teleport (PWS 2.3.1)

a. The offeror shall describe how they will provide teleport services to meet requirements in accordance with PWS 2.3.1.

b. The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to meet STO 3 teleport services requirements by providing within their technical proposal:

i. Geographical locations of teleports and additional elements allocated that will be needed to support the USMC architecture.

ii. Bill of material of high-level items composing the leased iDirect hub infrastructure along with software license

iii. Description of diagram of teleport capabilities that demonstrate high availability and redundancy to meet or exceed USMC requirements

iv. Description or diagram of teleport rack elevations that ensures resources capable of hosting Commercial Furnished Equipment (CFE) and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE).

2. Terrestrial (PWS 2.3.7)

a. The offeror shall describe how they will provide terrestrial services to meet requirements in accordance with PWS 2.3.7.

b. The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to meet STO 3 terrestrial services requirements by providing within their technical proposal:

i. Minimum throughput and maximum latency along circuit paths of worldwide reach-back network between commercial teleports, PoPs, GEP sites and the MCEN.

ii. Detailed layout records (DLR) showing geographically diverse terrestrial connectivity between commercial teleports, GEP sites, and the MCEN shall. DLR’s shall illustrate the physical routing of the circuits leaving the location as well as the long-haul path. DLR shall be submitted as an attachment.

iii. In service dates (after award) of each circuit supporting worldwide reach-back

iv. Security standards of IP reach-back network

4. Subfactor 4: Bandwidth Manager, Performance Work Statement (PWS 2.4.1)

The offeror will provide a bandwidth manager to serve as the primary liaison between the

USMC and satellite operators in managing various aspects of operational program support.

The offeror shall describe bandwidth manager qualifications through experience and education to meet bandwidth manager requirements. Bandwidth manager shall have demonstratable experience supporting link budgets and engineering of multi-band

COMSATCOM requirements. Bandwidth manger shall have experience receiving and processing commercial Satellite Access Requests (SAR). Bandwidth manager shall be capable of obtaining a SECRET clearance and regular access to SIPRNet terminal located on MCTSSA.

Bandwidth manager capabilities shall support and executing engineering activities to include transmission planning, link budget analysis, network design, budgetary pricing, network enhancements, and technical briefings.

5. Subfactor 5: Managed Services Manager, Performance Work Statement (PWS 2.4.2)

The offeror shall provide a managed services manager to serve as the primary liaison between the USMC and managed service providers in managing various aspects of operational program support.

The offeror shall describe managed services manager qualifications through experience and education to meet managed services manager requirements. Managed services manager shall have demonstratable experience developing and executing engineering activities to include link analysis for availability of requested services, network design, budgetary pricing, network enhancements, and technical briefings. Managed services manager shall provide a centralized management of managed services for multi orbit solutions. Managed services manager shall be capable of obtaining a SECRET clearance and regular access to SIPRNet terminal located on

MCTSSA. Managed services manager capabilities shall include providing all necessary access documentation for each managed service, to include but not limited to, option files, boot files, subscription service identification numbers, etc. as necessary for operation.

6. Subfactor 6: Bandwidth Management Reporting Tool, Performance Work

Statement (PWS 2.4.3)

The offeror shall provide a bandwidth management, near-real-time reporting tool, and service request portal that will provide the USMC the means of delivering space segment management, usage, and history tracking, generating usage, and forecasting reports, and providing the capability to order Managed Services offerings. The offeror shall provide the bandwidth management, near-real-time reporting tool, and service request portal on SIPRNET upon request.

This tool will be administratively managed by the offeror and will be operationally managed by the USMC. The tool shall be in the form of a database with a graphical user interface (GUI) providing ease of use to the USMC and accessibility via a USMC approved

Internet browser. The tool shall be capable of integrating documents and software currently in use by the USMC to prevent duplicate documentation associated with bandwidth management.

This tool shall allow the means of accurately tracking historic, current, and future bandwidth usage, provide the ability to perform trend analysis and usage forecasting, and act as the central point all users can access, post, and retrieve pertinent documentation specific to their needs. The bandwidth management tool can be modified as necessary to optimize the data and reporting out of the bandwidth management tool.

7. Subfactor 7: Information Assurance (IA), (PWS 2.7)

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates its ability to provide cybersecurity services, including the ability to respond to vulnerabilities and incidents in accordance with the Risk Management Framework (RMF). Additionally, the Government will assess whether the offeror demonstrates sound processes and policies which allow the offeror to respond quickly to changing requirements, minimize the operational impact of outages, address current and emerging cyber security threats, and provide near real time situational awareness with the least amount of risk.

The Government will assess offeror responses documented in the COMSATCOM

Information Assurance Questionnaire (CIAQ). Offeror shall ensure for all controls identified as part of the CIAQ, or other cybersecurity requirements, that the control or mitigation is in place at the performance start date.

The offeror shall be capable to support achieving Authority to Operate (ATO) or ATO with conditions in accordance with the USMC RMF process guide and procedures.

Measure of Merit: The offeror’s proposal for this subfactor is considered acceptable if the offeror’s solution is sound and meets the requirements outlined in PWS 2.7.

8. Subfactor 8: Managed Service Equipment, (PWS 2.8.1)

The offeror shall provide a list of user equipment supporting managed services.

1. Equipment:

i. Offeror shall provide the Government options for purchased or leased CFE terminals to access services via transponded bandwidth pools or managed services

ii. The offeror shall be capable of supporting CFE and GFE terminals on managed service networks

iii. Terminals must be capable of meeting the requirements set forth in PWS

2.8.1.

iv. Description of maintenance, repair, replacement, and sparing that meets

Government requirements offeror’s solution is sound and meets the requirements outlined in PWS 2.8.1.

9. Subfactor 9: Transition Support, Performance Work Statement (PWS 2.4.4)

This subfactor evaluates the proposal approach to Transition Plan. The transition plan must meet the requirement enumerated below and in PWS 2.4.4.

a. The offeror shall demonstrate their ability to meet or exceed transition requirements by providing within their technical proposal:

b. A detailed transition plan and milestone schedule to stand-up and transition services within 90 Days of contract award.

c. The transition plan shall include a detailed timeline for all services to support STO-3.

Information shall include installation, completion, and service activation for each terrestrial circuit to supporting commercial teleport, each terrestrial backhaul circuit to each Government network, and each teleport service.

d. The transition plan shall include a timeline time for all services to support STO-2.

Information shall include space segment activation and access to each satellite supporting STO-1, and service supporting STO-2.

offeror’s solution is sound and meets the requirements outlined in PWS 2.4.4.

2.2 PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance will be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

2.2.1 Recency

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. Each offeror is required to provide two Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) appraisals within the previous 3 years.

2.2.2 Relevance

The criteria to establish what prior performance is relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that supported efforts of similar size and scope to the subject requirement.

2.2.3 Quality of Performance

Quality of Performance (Services). The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Table 4. Past Performance

Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.2.4 Performance Confidence Assessment.

An offeror’s confidence rating will be based upon the Government’s combined assessment of their Past Performance as it pertains to the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The

Government will perform its evaluation against required documentation and provided information as described herein this Factor.

Table 5. Performance Confidence

Assessments Rating Method Adjectival

Rating

Description

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.

Measure of Merit: The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance of the offeror’s past performance to determine the appropriate confidence level required for COMSATCOM support.

2.3 PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

Each offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for completeness, unbalanced pricing, price reasonableness, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose Price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. In the evaluation of an offeror’s individual prices (to include pricing template) the Government may use information provided by

DCMA, DCAA, or other information source deemed appropriate by the Government.

Additionally, an offeror may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with the Instructions to Offerors (ITO).

Submission of an incomplete TEP will cause the offeror’s proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the solicitation and may render the proposal ineligible for award.

2.3.2 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government may determine a proposal unawardable should the proposal Contract

Line Items (CLINs) be materially unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offeror may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3.3 Price Reasonableness

The price evaluation will document reasonableness of the proposal price and may be evaluated at the CLIN level. For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the

Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market.

For further information, see FAR 31.201-3. Price reasonableness can be established through adequate price competition, but the Offeror’s proposal may also be evaluated using any of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable.

2.3.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP, RFP Attachment 5, shall be used to calculate the prices proposed in your submitted Pricing Worksheet. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. Instructions for completing the TEP are included within the individual TEP. Offerors shall review and make sure they concur with all

TEP totals. Since the TEP workbook correspond with the CLIN structure in the proposal request, offerors must make sure all rows in the TEP workbook are filled in so that there are no empty fields in the workbook.