Attachment 3 - T1 OandI Evaluation Factors.pdf

HQ085022R0002 Attachment 3

National Defense Space Architecture Tranche 1 Operations and Integration

Evaluation Factors for Award 18 January 2022

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

1 Basis for Contract Award This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3 and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016. The Government will select the most highly rated Offeror that represents the overall best value to the Government.

In making its award decision, the Government will use the evaluation Factors shown in Table 1.

The Government will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal. The successful Offeror will need to be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1, as supplemented by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and proposals must conform to the solicitation’s requirements to be eligible for award. The Government may reject any or all proposals, if such action is in the best interest of the Government, and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

While the Government strives for maximum objectivity in its evaluations, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1 Evaluation Methodology

The following Factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The basis for evaluation for all Factors will be the Offeror’s full proposal. The Government will assign one of the color ratings described for the Factors as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Evaluation Factors

Factors Rating Methodology

1 Schedule and Schedule Agility

Combined Schedule Creation, Management and Risk Rating

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

2 Technical Solution

Combined Solution Value and Risk Rating

3 Technical Management

Combined Management Approach and Risk Rating

4 Past Performance Substantial Confidence

Satisfactory Confidence

Limited Confidence

Neutral Confidence

No Confidence

5 Small Business Acceptable Unacceptable

6 Cost/Price Total Evaluated Price

Reasonable Not Reasonable Balanced Unbalanced

1.2 Relative Importance of Factors

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), when combined, Factors 1 through 5 are approximately equal to Factor 6, Cost/Price. Factor 1 is more important than Factors 2 through 4, Factors 2 through 4 are approximately equal in importance, all are significantly more important than Factor 5. At the discretion of the Government, any Offeror receiving a rating of “Unacceptable,” “No Confidence,” or “Not Reasonable” in one or more Factors will be deemed ineligible for award and not further considered for selection.

2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government will make one (1) award to the Offeror that provides the best value for this requirement in accordance with the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make no awards at all.

3 General Instructions The Government will evaluate, in accordance with this attachment, information that the Offeror provides in response to Attachment 2 – Proposal Instructions. Proposals must conform to this Request for Proposal (RFP). Any submitted proposal that does not adhere to the requirements in this RFP may be eliminated from the competition and become ineligible for award.

3.1 Solicitation Requirements

An Offeror is required to meet or exceed all solicitation requirements, e.g., terms and conditions, small business subcontracting plan submissions, representations and certifications. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to cross-reference between volumes and sections of volumes to support proposal evaluation.

3.2 Discussions

The Government intends to make award after discussions with offerors within the competitive range. The Government may request Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) from all Offerors who remain in the competitive range (see Section 4 – Competitive Range). Any proposal updates will be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified herein. The Government may suggest to Offerors that have exceeded any mandatory minimums (in ways that are not integral to the design), that their proposals would be more competitive if the excesses were removed and the associated cost elements decreased or removed.

As described in FAR 15.101-1, the Government will evaluate offers using a competitive best value tradeoff process among price and the non-price Factors listed herein. Thus, the Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced Offerors, or other than the highest technically rated Offerors. An Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms in regard to price and technical capability

4 Competitive Range In accordance with FAR 15.306, an Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range at any time during discussions if the Offeror is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated.

This elimination can occur whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or if the Offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit an FPR. The Contracting Officer (CO) may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

5 Evaluation of Factor 1: Schedule and Schedule Agility The Government will assess the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and the extent to which the proposal provides evidence that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the tools, techniques and talent required to: develop, maintain and adhere to a detailed IMS leading to operational readiness of both Operations Centers, essential RF and optical Ground Entry Points, and a fully functional Space Development Agency (SDA) Unified Planning Environment and Resources for NEBULA Operations – Vendor Agnostic (SUPERNOVA) by Ground Readiness Review (GRR).

Equally important, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to fully integrate discrete capabilities across Tranche 1 Transport Layer (T1TL), Tranche 1 Tracking Layer, and Tranche 1 Demonstration and Experimentation System (T1DES) milestones in the Tranche 1 IMS as well as the Offeror’s approach for using the IMS to anticipate and recommend mitigations for schedule and programmatic risks, enabling Tranche 1 success. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to mature the National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA) through a phased Crawl, Walk, Run approach.

The basis of the assessment will be Volume III – Schedule and Schedule Agility and all attachments, and any schedule creation, management and/or risk details contained within any of the other proposal volumes. Identified strengths and weaknesses in areas that affect schedule realism, management and mitigation of risks to schedule adherence, or contribute to the Offeror’s ability to continuously demonstrate agility in a dynamic schedule environment will also be considered in this assessment.

The Government will specifically evaluate the Offeror’s integrated tools, techniques and talent applied to meet or exceed all schedule requirements and objectives as set forth in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to ensure schedule reasonableness and realism based on the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of tasks and activities that address all contract scope. Based on an integrated assessment of all schedule-related information provided, the Government will consider:

the ability of the Offeror to manage multiple, dynamic lines of effort and incremental delivery while maintaining the primary schedule; identified primary and secondary critical paths to key delivery dates at the Tranche 1 and O&I levels; and, addressing identified and evolving schedule risks, risk response strategies, Contractor and/or Government decision gates, and schedule performance criteria used to manage progress against each baseline IMS.

The Government will assign an overall Factor 1: Schedule and Schedule Agility rating as described in Table 2.

Table 2 Schedule and Schedule Agility Evaluation Factors

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding

1. Proposed IMS is logical, cohesive, complete and supports dynamic integration of new capabilities

2. Proposal indicates an exceptional understanding of schedule interdependencies and clearly identifies critical path(s), risks and opportunities and

3. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

1. Proposal indicates a complete understanding of schedule interdependencies and identifies potential critical path(s), most risks and some opportunities and

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

1. Proposal indicates an understanding of schedule interdependencies and identifies potential critical path(s), some risks and a few opportunities and

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no greater than moderate.

Marginal

1. Proposal indicates a limited understanding of schedule interdependencies and identifies elements of critical path(s), risks and opportunities and/or

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal

Ineligible for award

1. Proposal contains one or more deficiencies and

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

The Government will assign significant strengths, strengths, and/or deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the Factor 1: Schedule and Schedule Agility rating. Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government are defined as follows:

• A Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal that will be very advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

• A Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that decreases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

• A Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance for the O&I program and/or the T1 Space Segment.

• A Significant Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

• A Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement.

6 Evaluation of Factor 2: Technical Solution The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical solution and system architecture, including hardware and software systems, cybersecurity, DevSecOps solutions, facilities and infrastructure, integration and interoperability, resilience to diverse external development paradigms, and operations and sustainment approach. The evaluation will be based upon the Offeror’s presented evidence of their ability to successfully develop, verify, and operate the Tranche 1 systems, including but not limited to Mission Management, Network Management, and Enterprise Management throughout the period of performance. The Government will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of: the Tranche 1 mission and its stakeholders; design, development and deployment of an integrated ground operations capability; and long-term operations and sustainment of a multi-segment National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA).

The basis of the assessment will be Volume IV – Technical Solution and all attachments, personnel résumés, and any solution details contained within any of the other proposal volumes. Identified strengths and weaknesses in technical areas that affect solution viability or contribute to technical risk will also be considered in this assessment.

The Government will specifically evaluate the Offeror’s integrated tools, techniques and talent applied to meet or exceed all technical requirements and objectives as set forth in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach leading from development through system verification and validation, encompassing network management, mission management, space vehicle/ground operations and affordable sustainment to include the methods used to train personnel and ensure that all personnel are qualified to perform assigned tasks as well as the long-term viability of the proposed architecture and tools to support operations and sustainment of the NDSA system. The Government will specifically consider how any unique elements of the Offeror’s technical solution enhance the Tranche 1 Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and to what extent the Offeror’s solution is readily extensible to additional NDSA layers or adjunct missions with low risk. The Government will assign an overall Factor 2: Technical Solution rating as described in Table 3.

Table 3 Technical Solution Evaluation Factors

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding

1. Proposed technical solution meets or exceeds system technical requirements as specified in the SOW and

2. Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the technical requirements and mission accomplishment and

3. Risk of unsuccessful technical performance is low.

Good

1. Proposed technical solution meets system technical requirements as specified in the SOW and

2. Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the technical requirements and mission accomplishment and

3. Risk of unsuccessful technical performance is low.

Acceptable

1. Proposed technical solution meets system technical requirements as specified in the SOW and

2. Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the technical requirements and mission accomplishment and

3. Risk of unsuccessful technical performance is no greater than moderate.

Marginal

1. Proposed technical solution meets system technical requirements as specified in the SOW and/or

2. Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the technical requirements and mission accomplishment and/or

3. Risk of unsuccessful technical performance is high.

Ineligible for award

1. Proposed technical solution does not meet system technical requirements as specified in the SOW, and/or

2. Proposal contains one or more deficiencies and/or

3. Risk of unsuccessful technical performance is very high.

significant weaknesses to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the Factor 2: Technical Solution rating.

Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government are defined as follows:

• A Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal that will be very advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

• A Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that decreases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

• A Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

• A Significant Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

• A Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement.

7 Evaluation of Factor 3: Technical Management The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Management approach for successful execution against the full Tranche 1 O&I scope of work. The evaluation will include proposed key personnel and teammate/subcontractor on the basis of their experience and assigned levels to the program, how those personnel and teammates are aligned to relevant parts of the program, and the programmatic mechanisms in place to enable those personnel and teammates to successfully execute the program. The Government will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the tools, techniques and talent required to: deliver quality program management and systems engineering oversight across a complex and dispersed architecture; accomplish dynamic system-of-systems engineering and integration with multiple stakeholders; effectively and efficiently operate and sustain an integrated ground and space operational solution; and source, train, and retain geographically dispersed personnel functionally interoperating as a cohesive team.

The basis of the assessment will be Volume II – Program Governance and all attachments, personnel organization, and any management and engineering details contained within any of the other proposal volumes. Identified strengths and weaknesses in areas that affect process viability or contribute to programmatic risk will also be considered in this assessment.

The Government will specifically evaluate the Offeror’s integrated tools, techniques and talent applied to meet or exceed all program management/system engineering requirements and objectives as set forth in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed management and engineering processes and approach culminating in declaration of an effective and suitable Tranche 1 initial warfighting capability. The Government will specifically consider how any unique elements of the Offeror’s management solution enhance the Tranche 1 system of systems and to what extent the Offeror’s management approach seamlessly integrates stakeholders, additional missions and/or external mission partners. In addition, the Government will consider application of these processes, procedures, and methodologies to enable or facilitate management of large complex system development and integration, testing, operations, maintenance, and sustainment activities within the program team and external teammates, associate contractors, and subcontractors. The Government will assign an overall Factor 3: Technical Management rating as described in Table 4.

Table 4 Technical Management Evaluation Factors

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding

1. Proposal meets or exceeds work performance requirements as specified in the

SOW

2. Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of mission accomplishment and

3. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

1. Proposal meets work performance requirements as specified in the SOW

2. Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of mission accomplishment and

3. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

1. Proposal meets work performance requirements as specified in the SOW

2. Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of mission accomplishment and

3. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no greater than moderate.

Marginal

1. Proposal meets work performance requirements as specified in the SOW

2. Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach or understanding of mission accomplishment and/or

3. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Ineligible for award

1. Proposal does not meet work performance requirements as specified in the

SOW

2. Proposal contains one or more deficiencies and/or

3. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very high.

significant weaknesses to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the Factor 3: Technical Management rating. Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government are defined as follows:

• A Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal that will be very advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful management or engineering performance.

• A Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that decreases the risk of unsuccessful management or engineering performance.

• A Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful management or engineering performance.

• A Significant Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful management or engineering performance.

• A Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement.

8 Evaluation of Factor 4: Past Performance Confidence The Government will assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of work performance.

The Government will evaluate Factor 4 based on information provided within proposal Volume V

– Past Performance and Experience. The Government may consider past performance information not provided by the Offeror including, but not limited to:

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

• Publicly available information

• Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

• Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)

• Interviews with Customer Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials or other Government personnel

• Past performance questionnaires completed by customers from whom the Offeror has received previous contract awards

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent (performance was within three (3) calendar years of the proposal due date) and directly relevant (based on size, scope and complexity) record of past performance information obtained to determine whether past performance efforts relate to the scope of activities described in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document. Past performance citations addressing all, or a majority, of the workscope (as identified in Attachment 2 – Proposal Instructions, Section 5: Volume V: Past Performance and Experience) will be considered more directly relevant.

The following ratings, in Table 5, will be assigned to the Offeror’s collective past performance for relevancy:

Table 5 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description

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

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.

The Government will review all the past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror's performance, general trends, and the usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. More relevant past performance will have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. In evaluating Past Performance, the Government will consider the Offeror’s previously demonstrated:

A. Contract past performance, history and experience.

B. Ability to accomplish requirements to receive milestone- or performance-based payments.

This includes activities such as interim deliverables, delivery of CDRLs or other technical and business reports, and completion of customer direction through task assignments or technical directions.

C. Ability to meet technical requirements and performance standards for previous work.

D. Ability to meet delivery or performance dates.

E. Approach in determining probable root cause for less than fully successful missions and resultant actions taken to improve reliability.

F. Ability to execute proposed design and schedule, for mesh-network communications across heterogenous system of systems architecture.

G. Safety and mission assurance performance record, including any safety mishaps and associated resolution.

H. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the evaluation will also consider the extent to which the

Offeror’s past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.218-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (if applicable).

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence rating from Table 6.

Table 6 Past Performance Confidence Evaluation Criteria

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

No 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 (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) and (iv)).

No Confidence Proposal is

Ineligible for award

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

9 Evaluation of Factor 5: Small Business Participation The evaluation of Small Business Subcontracting and Commitment to the Small Business Program applies to all Offerors, except that Small Businesses are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and will receive an Acceptable rating.

The Government will evaluate Factor 5 based on information provided within proposal Volume VI

– Small Business Participation. The Government will evaluate the extent to which small businesses (to include Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, Small Disadvantaged business concerns, and Women-Owned small business concerns) are identified in Attachment 4 - the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). Offerors must meet the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of small business participation which is five (5) percent (%) of the total proposed contract value (to include options). The Government will assess the Small Business Utilization Plan (SBUP) (if applicable) in accordance with FAR 19.704 and the SBUP must reflect the level of small business participation specified in the SBPCD. Offerors are free to submit only an SBPCD, only a SBUP, or both, as long as all information required by Attachment 4 and a thorough discussion of identification, selection and utilization of small business concerns for more than simply administrative purchases is contained therein. The Government will give careful consideration to an Offeror’s dependence on small business for critical technical aspects of its overall proposal. The inclusion of significant engineering or technical elements from small business and other than traditional defense and aerospace contractors is considered a strength by SDA.

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will receive a rating from Table 7.

Table 7 Small Business Evaluation Criteria

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives; Proposal meets MQR

Unacceptable Proposal is Ineligible for award

Proposal does not meet MQR.

10 Evaluation of Factor 6: Cost/Price The Government will evaluate Factor 6 based on information provided within proposal Volume VII – Cost/Price and Rationale and all attachments, and any details contained within any of the other proposal volumes. The Offeror’s pricing will be evaluated for Reasonableness and Unbalanced pricing. Proposals that are determined to be Unreasonable are not awardable.

Proposals that are determined to contain Unbalanced pricing may not be awardable.

10.1 Price Reasonableness

The firm fixed price CLINs will be evaluated to determine price reasonableness. Particular attention shall be given to FAR 15.404-1(b) entitled Price Analysis. Elements of FAR 15.404-1(b) that may be used in the evaluation include: comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates; and analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the Offeror. The Government may use data external to the Offeror's proposal such as, but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial data when evaluating price reasonableness. Unrealistically low and/or unreasonably proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis of lack of understanding of the requirement or unreasonable/unrealistic proposal.

10.2 Realism and Probable Cost

For Cost reimbursable CLINs, the Government will evaluate the realism of each Offeror’s proposed costs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(1). Cost realism analysis is used to determine the probable cost of an Offeror’s unique technical proposal and to ensure the Offeror understands the requirements of the contract. A small difference between the proposed cost and the probable cost indicates a realistic proposal based on the Offeror’s unique technical solution; while a large difference indicates an unrealistic proposal based on that unique technical solution. A cost realism analysis involves independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of the cost buildup, e.g., labor and material, of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine:

- The estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed;

- Reflect a clear understanding of the scope of work; and

- Are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the

Offeror’s technical proposal.

The cost realism analysis conducted by the Government determines the Most Probable Cost (MPC) of the proposed contract. MPC adjustments can be made for inconsistencies between the cost proposal and supporting documentation, such as subcontractor sealed proposals submitted under separate cover to the Government, math errors, logic errors, unsupported assertions, proposed effort not included in the cost, or inappropriate estimating methods in the Offeror’s proposal. The MPC may or may not differ from the proposed cost and shall reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract most likely to result from an Offeror’s proposal. The MPC shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. A contract will not be awarded based on a proposal with an indeterminable MPC due to missing information or other factors. The Basis of Estimate will only be used for making MPC adjustments, relative to the quantity of personnel proposed and level of effort.

10.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more price inputs in the pricing tables is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

10.4 Total Evaluated Price

The total evaluated price will be calculated by combining the MPC for the cost reimbursable CLINs (including all Options) and the proposed price for the firm fixed price CLINs (including all Options). A lower evaluated price will be evaluated more favorably.