Attachment 4. Section M.pdf

Attachment 4

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will evaluate proposals based on the factors outlined in this section. The evaluation process will assess the offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation and the overall best value to the Government.

Award will be made to the Offeror/contractor who is deemed responsible In Accordance With (IAW) Contractor Qualifications RFO Part 9.1, and whose proposal meets technical solution for the price/cost that is complete, realistic, reasonable, and balanced.

The Government shall evaluate the proposals based on pass/fail of the Gate and where Factor I Technical and (Subfactor 1-Technical Approach, Subfactor 2- Management Approach, and Subfactor 3 Project Staffing Approach) are more important than Factor II Past Performance. Factor I Technical when combined with Factor II Past Performance, are significantly more important than Factor III Cost/Price.

The Government will select the submission which conforms to the Solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the submission instructions), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award the Offeror who is best suited to fulfill the Air Force requirement. Firm Fixed Price (FFP) (Labor CLINS) & Time-and-Materials (T&M) (ODCs Tools and Travel) , may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW RFO 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation instructions) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. In doing so, the Government will determine the most advantageous offer, thus may accept other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Government reasonably determines that the non-price factors of the higher priced Offeror outweigh the price difference.

This requirement is a Small Business Set Aside through SAM.GOV. The Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in a single Labor Hour (LH) & T&M (ODCs) Tools and Travel contract.

The Government will review all documents for compliance. When all requested documents are received and confirmed compliant, the Offeror’s proposal package will be submitted for evaluation.

M.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.0 Evaluation of Gates Submittal

Gate 1: Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC)

The offeror must provide proof of CMMC certification (the official certificate) submitted with the proposal.

Rating Description Pass Proposal includes proof of the required CMMC Level 2 Certification.

Fail Proposal does not include proof of the required CMMC Level 2

Certification. An offeror without the certification will be deemed technically unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Gate2: Key Personnel and Security Clearance : Key Personnel for the Base Year - seven (7) FTEs; for OY1, OY2, and RFO 52.217-8 - five (5) FTEs: (Labor Categories: Senior Cybersecurity Engineer(s) (one

(1) minimum) and Mid-level Cyber Security Engineers).

Offerors must submit resumes for proposed Key Personnel (Senior Cybersecurity Engineer one (1) minimum) and Mid-level Cyber Security Engineers) as defined in Appendix A of the SOW and must follow instructions outlined in Section L of the solicitation. At the time of proposal submission, all proposed Key Personnel must possess current and active Top Secret (TS) security clearance.

Proposals that do not include resumes demonstrating the “Minimum Requirement” and who have not followed the Section L instructions for all proposed Key Personnel will be considered “unacceptable” and will not be evaluated further.

The qualifications and experience of the proposed Key Personnel will be evaluated as a significant factor. The Government will assess the Offeror's ability to provide qualified personnel who meet the specified requirements. The strength of the proposed Key Personnel's resumes, including relevant experience, will be assessed. The Key Personnel Succession Plan will be evaluated for its completeness and feasibility.

Pass Proposal includes proposed key personnel resumes and demonstrates minimum requirements and adjudicated TS Clearance IAW Appendix A of the SOW.

Fail Proposal does not include proposed key personnel resumes and does not demonstrate minimum requirements and adjudicated TS Clearance IAW Appendix A of the SOW.

Evaluation Factors The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate proposals:

Factor I –Technical:

Subfactor I – Technical Approach Subfactor II - Management Approach Subfactor III – Project Staffing Approach

Factor II – Past Performance

Factor III – Cost/Price

2.1 Evaluation Process

• The first step of the evaluation process is that the Government will review all proposals to ensure compliance and completeness in all volumes. Proposals determined compliant and complete will move forward to step 3 for technical evaluation. Offerors proposals that were deemed not compliant and complete will be ineligible for award.

• The second step of the evaluation process is that the Government will assign a pass/fail rating for Gates 1 and 2. Those offeror(s) must meet the following criteria in:

o Gate 1: Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) - Offerors must receive a pass rating to be considered technically acceptable for Gate 1. Offerors that are assigned a failure rating are ineligible for award.

o Gate2: Key Personnel and Security Clearance - Offerors must receive a pass rating to be considered technically acceptable for Gate 1. Offerors that are assigned a failure rating are ineligible for award.

• The third step of the evaluation process is to evaluate Factor I Technical with all associated Sub-factors 1,2, and 3 of the Offeror’s proposal. In parallel the past performance team will conduct its independent evaluation Factor II Past Performance.

o Factor I Technical - Offerors must receive a rating of Acceptable or higher on each subfactor to be considered technically acceptable. Offerors with a rating below acceptable will not be eligible for award. All proposals found to be technically acceptable or higher will move forward to step four price evaluation. Proposals that received a technical rating less than acceptable will be ineligible for award.

o Factor II Past Performance - Offerors must receive a rating of Acceptable on Factor II Past

Performance. Offerors with a rating below acceptable will not be eligible for award. All proposals found to be acceptable or higher will move forward to step four price evaluation.

Proposals that received a rating less than acceptable will be ineligible for award.

• The fourth step in the evaluation process is only to evaluate Volume V Factor III Cost/Price of those offerors proposals found to be technically acceptable in Factor I, Technical and Factor II, Past Performance in step 3.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions (Section L 1) with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint.

2.2 Factor I - Technical: The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed technical approach demonstrates an understanding of DC3’s mission as it relates to the tasks identified in the SOW to include: certification requirements, technical delivery, working knowledge and experience. The Offeror shall demonstrate an acceptable approach to staff, recruit, retain and replace personnel with the experience required to perform the full rate of tasks defined in the SOW. Offeror shall adequately demonstrate an acceptable approach managing personnel along with acceptable approach to efficiently and proactively managing the SOW. During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign Factor I - Technical Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 a Rating as shown below.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

The following terminology will be used to explain the rating from the table above:

Significant strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal of appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal of merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Technical risk is defined as follows:

Risk Definitions Description Low Proposal may contain weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will be unlikely to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that cause an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

2.2.1 Subfactor I - Technical Approach: The Offerors will be evaluated on the following:

The Offeror’s understanding and comprehensive, detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 2.5.1.1, Engineering and Technical Analysis Support and Section 2.5.1.2, Integration & Sustainment Environment Engineering and any/all associated subtasks as set forth in the SOW. The Offeror’s approach will demonstrate Offeror's comprehension of DC3 system requirements. Evaluation focuses on the depth of understanding of DC3 systems, the breadth, depth, and innovation of the technical solution, including the range of engineering services and alignment with industry best practices, the approach to agile implementation and other modern methodologies, and the identification and mitigation of potential risks, including a proactive approach to supportability design. Proposals will be evaluated based on the clarity, completeness, and technical merit of their approach. Evaluation focuses on the proposed methodology for day-to-day process and system infrastructure operations, the approach to Root Cause Analysis (RCA) for eliminating recurring incidents and minimizing the impact of unavoidable incidents, and the comprehensive Problem Management plan, including activities for diagnosing root causes, determining resolutions, and providing effective workarounds.

2.2.1.1 The Offeror’s understanding of and detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 2.5.1.3, Change Management and Release Management and any/all associated subtasks as set forth in the SOW. The Offeror’s proposal shall set forth the Offeror's technical approach to planning, coordinating, and executing change and release management activities for new, changed, or decommissioned services within the DC3 environment. Evaluation focuses on the demonstrated understanding and application of best practices, including DoD system-engineering guides, PMBOK processes, and SAFe Agile principles for change management, integration, configuration control, and Release Management Framework implementation. The approach will be evaluated on its ability to ensure mission-effective engineering and technical support within a continuous integration environment, and its plan to meet established process quality performance measures.

2.2.1.2 The Offeror’s understanding of and comprehensive, detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 2.5.1.4, Architecture and any/all associated subtasks as set forth in the SOW. Offeror shall demonstrate its ability and approach to supporting and providing recommendations for future architecture modifications, including coordinated modernization and execution of AF Cyber Operations and Cyber LE/CI, in close collaboration with Mission Partners/Owners. Evaluation focuses on the technical soundness and feasibility of the architecture recommendations, including their alignment with industry standards and best practices as directed by the Government, and the approach to updating operational and system views and maintaining standards lists. Also evaluated is the plan for facilitating integration of architecture initiatives across DoD and in close collaboration with other DoD/IC Mission

Partners.

2.2.1.3 The Offeror’s understanding of and comprehensive, detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 2.5.1.5, Studies, Analysis and Assessments and any/all associated actions as set forth in the SOW. Offeror shall demonstrate approach to developing an efficient and effective methodology for assessing and evaluating solutions throughout the lifecycle of DC3 technical programs, including AF Cyber enterprise systems and Cyber-LE/CI specific tools and capabilities. Evaluation focuses on the proposed methodology for assessing and evaluating solutions, including its comprehensiveness, objectivity, and alignment with industry best practices. Also evaluated is the approach to identifying and evaluating current and emerging Government and commercial technologies and procedures that may offer improvements to capabilities, and the plan for ensuring technology solutions and designs consider operational constraints and limitations while providing for continuous technological or workflow improvement.

2.2.1.4 The Offeror’ complementary and cooperative approach to Test Engineering as set forth in Section 2.5.1.6, Test Engineering. Of critical importance is the understanding of the Offeror's technical approach to providing full system life-cycle test engineering capability support for automated test integration. Evaluation focuses on demonstrated expertise in AF, traditional, Scrum, and scaled agile software development techniques, and automated test processes in transition to a continuous integration environment leading to a DevOps environment. The approach will also be evaluated on the plan to coordinate training in best practices, perform operational and developmental tests and evaluation, and verification testing with new/modernized automated test software applications, as well as the ability to support technical exchange meetings (TEMs), participate in quick reaction teams for failure analysis and mishap investigations, and coordinate risk assessment, mitigation, and corrective action plans.

2.2.1.5 The Offeror’s understanding of and comprehensive, detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 2.5.1.7, Process Improvement and Transition Planning and any/all associated actions as set forth in the SOW. The Offeror's approach to providing quality assurance for technical services, focusing on process improvement and transition planning.

Evaluation centers on the innovativeness and effectiveness of proposed processes and procedures to ensure optimally effective, efficient, affordable, and supportable operational capability, including plans to fully evaluate technical resource allocation, enterprise asset management, licensing considerations, and the fulfillment of validated Government requirements. Also evaluated is the technical approach to transition plans that demonstrate how initial prototypes or pilot demonstrations can rapidly evolve to full system functionality and a supportable operational capability, and the methodology for providing engineering or technical services to correct or improve issues, maintaining required operations and maintenance performance or directly supporting system production, sustainment, integration, interoperability, and configuration management.

2.2.1.6 The Offeror’s understanding of and comprehensive, detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 2.5.1.8, Cyber Operations Analysis and any/all associated actions as set forth in the SOW. The Offeror's approach assesses the Offeror's approach to providing full spectrum intelligence analysis and production support to DC3. Evaluation focuses on the application of structured analytic techniques using all-source intelligence data, drawing from methodologies outlined in recognized intelligence analysis publications. The approach will be evaluated on its ability to identify and document gaps in intelligence data, generate and monitor intelligence collection requirements, and produce a variety of internal intelligence products ranging from quick looks to deep dives. Also evaluated is the technical methodology for providing intelligence analysis to identify potential outcomes of tools under development and to identify additional opportunities for tool development, considering vulnerable systems, adversary capabilities, and potential modifications.

2.2.1.7 The Offeror’s understanding of and comprehensive, detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 2.5.1.9, Developmental Technical Project Support (R&D) and any/all associated actions as set forth in the SOW. The Offeror's approach to providing engineering and technical enterprise project development support, including R&D activities.

Evaluation focuses on the development of a holistic approach to multi-domain effects environments in the conduct of R&D activities, Development Test and Evaluation (DT&E), and Operational Test and Evaluations (OT&E), and the preparation of feasibility COA analysis for tradeoff and risk drivers in the development of installations and activities in R&D projects. Also evaluated is the approach to analysis of alternatives, formation and integration of technical requirements for proof of concept demonstrations during development of constructs supporting multi-domain effects, and the methodology for inspecting and evaluating engineering projects to meet industry best practices and AF requirements, including cyber/radio frequency spectrum effects.

2.2.1.8 The Offeror’s understanding of and comprehensive, detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 2.5.1.10, Technical and Enterprise Project Management and any/all associated actions as set forth in the SOW. The Offeror's approach assesses the Offeror providing program and project management support for the successful planning, execution, and delivery of DC3 technical programs. Evaluation focuses on the methodology for schedule development and management, resource assessments, and risk assessments to ensure projects are completed on time, within budget, and to required specifications. Also evaluated is the approach to coordinating project activities, including meetings, status updates, and progress reports, to ensure stakeholder communication and project tracking, and the plan for developing project estimates, tracking expenses, identifying cost savings opportunities, and ensuring compliance with budget constraints and quality assurance plans. Also evaluated is the approach to integrated acquisition/procurement processes across all program management phases, including JCIDS, PPBE, and DoD 5000 series policies, and the methodology for integrating mission capabilities, informing enterprise resource and policy decisions, and ensuring the delivery of timely, objective, accurate, and relevant expertise or analysis to address national security or law enforcement threats.

2.2.2 Subfactor II - Management Approach: The Offerors will be evaluated on the following:

2.2.2.1 Demonstrated an acceptable MANAGEMENT APPROACH to personnel along with an acceptable approach to efficiently and proactively manage this contract IAW the SOW.

2.2.2.2 The relevancy and comprehensiveness of the Offeror’s proposed management team approach including an assessment of the degree to which it reflects a cooperative, effective, efficient, feasible, and practical approach to accomplishing the tasks and deliverables as stated in the SOW from a management perspective, with emphasis on a mutually supportive approach that is risk conscious, innovative, cooperative and cost conscious.

2.2.2.3 The degree of effectiveness, relevancy, and practicality of the Offeror’s methodology to ensure a complementary and cooperative relationship between the contractor and Government with emphasis on mission success, timely problem identification, mitigation, and resolution. A comprehensive, effective, and feasible approach to risk management during the contract (to include transition) from a management perspective, and the planned actions to mitigate or eliminate risks.

2.2.2.4 A comprehensive, effective, and relevant approach to meet the workload requirements that is adaptive to short notice, short duration and/or ad-hoc requirements.

The Offeror’s transition-in planning during the kickoff meeting needs to demonstrate the ability to provide integrated and seamless support with minimum to no risk to mission during transition.

2.2.3 Subfactor III –Project Staffing Approach: The Offerors will be evaluated on the following:

2.2.3.1 The Offerors demonstrates an understanding of and comprehensive detailed approach to STAFFING IWA the required FTE(s) stated in the SOW. The Government will evaluate the offeror based on the total number of proposed full-time equivalent (FTE) hours necessary to successfully perform the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW). The adequacy of the proposed effort will be assessed by examining how effectively the offeror allocates and applies the proposed hours to meet all performance requirements.

2.2.3.2 The following assesses the Offeror's approach to recruiting, selecting, onboarding, and retaining qualified personnel to meet the FTE(s) requirements in the SOW. The evaluation focuses on the Offeror's demonstrated approach to: 1) identifying and attracting candidates with the skills, certifications, and experience relevant to the SOW’s technical tasks, including methods for assessing technical proficiency and problem-solving abilities; 2) onboarding and training personnel for rapid integration and proficiency in DC3 processes and procedures; and 3) retaining qualified personnel through competitive compensation, professional development, and a supportive work environment, and 4) ability to minimize turnover and quickly fill vacant positions as required by the SOW.

2.2.3.3 A feasible methodology for hiring, retaining, and replacing appropriately qualified personnel throughout the life of this contract. Ability to provide expertise, experience and required security clearances needed to support the unique requirements of cyberspace, digital forensics, cyber investigations, cyber counterintelligence, cyberspace support and other functional areas as set forth in the SOW.

2.2.4 FACTOR II PAST PERFORMANCE: The Government will evaluate the type of relatable past performance the Offeror puts forward and how those experiences potentially show a foundation for future support to DC3.

The Offerors will be evaluated on the following:

2.2.4.1 The Offeror’s personnel that are being considered as Key Personnel in their roles and in their support should provide Significant Past Performance verification to DC3. Items that will support a high past performance rating include documented evidence of successful performance as a prime contractor on at least one (1) U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) contract within the past five (5) years. Contracts having directly supported cyber operations, law enforcement activities, or counterintelligence efforts within the DoD will be viewed as foundational experience as SMEs. Evidence must include contract number, contracting agency, period of performance, and a brief description of the relevant services/deliverables.

2.2.4.2 The Government will evaluate using 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 will be considered for each of the contracts or requirements evaluated. The evaluators will determine the quality of performance on the contracts by applying a confidence rating in accordance with the Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rate Method Chart below.

• Recency: The first step in the evaluation process is to assess the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. This involves examining past performance information to determine whether it meets the requirement of being recent. Specifically, the Offeror must demonstrate at least twelve (12) months of continuous active contract performance within the last five (5) years from the date of this solicitation's issuance. The Government may conduct an independent review to verify the information submitted by the Offeror and may also supplement this information with additional Federal contracts awarded to the Offeror that fall within the designated recency timeframe.

o NOTE: Offerors that fail to meet the "recency" criteria will not proceed to further evaluation for the second aspect, "Relevance."

• Relevance: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to this effort. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contract citations relate to the Technical capability, Past Performance and Price factors. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance citations, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, Subcontractor, or teaming partner. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. Relevancy will be determined based on the definition provided in Table below, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method.

Past Performance Relevance Rating Method

Adjectival 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

NOTE: Offer(s) must be evaluated “somewhat relevant” or above to be considered to the next phase of the Past Performance evaluation (Quality of Performance).

• Quality of Performance. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance.

The Government will consider information from customers on how well the Offeror performed on past contract citations. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services, the work performed, will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The Government reserves the right to obtain information relative to present and past performance on its own, in addition to information provided by the Offeror. The quality of an Offeror’s past performance may be reviewed and evaluated through the use of systems such as the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition or other sources or databases known to the Government. Interviews may be conducted with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, Defense Contract Management Agency or other sources known to the Government. The “Quality of Performance” will be determined based on the definition provided in Table below, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method.

Quality of Performance Adjectival Rating

Description

Exceptional During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded many of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at a superior level.

Performance was accomplished with very few minor problems, and the contractor took immediate and effective corrective actions for those problems that did occur.

Very Good During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded some of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed very well.

Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, and the contractor took timely and effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

Satisfactory During the entire period, the contractor met the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at an acceptable level. Performance was accomplished with some problems, and the contractor took effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

Marginal During the entire period, the contractor did not always meet some of the requirements of the contract and intervention was required to continue performance. There were instances where performance was at a less than acceptable level, performance was accomplished with some problems and some corrective actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory During the entire period, the contractor did not meet the requirements of the contract and performance was at an unacceptable level. There were a number of serious problems that required extensive oversight and involvement, and corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent

Not Applicable Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, or information was not available. Do not know.

NOTE: Offer(s) must be evaluated “marginal” or above to be considered to the next phase of the Past Performance evaluation (Performance Confidence Assessments Rating).

• Performance Confidence Assessment. The Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of services assessments. Offerors will receive one integrated overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror's performance record is unknown (see note below).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably lined, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance IAW RFO 15.202. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or "neutral") past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered acceptable.

2.2.5 FACTOR III: COST/PRICE

The Offeror’s price proposal will evaluate Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for reasonableness, completeness, and balance.

The Cost/Price evaluation will include assessment of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for the following criteria:

1. Reasonableness

2. Completeness

3. Balanced/Unbalanced Pricing

2.2.5.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The proposal will evaluate the total evaluated price (TEP) and the price proposed for each CLIN. The TEP consists of the total proposed price for all CLINs, Option CLINs, and NTE CLINs (although NTE CLINs will not be evaluated), One (1) year base with two (2) one-year option periods, IAW with RFO 52.217-9 (Option to Extend the term of the Contract). The contract will include a six (6) month extension IAW RFO 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services). The price proposed for each CLIN includes the applicable unburdened labor hour rates, burden rate, and any other rate applied to each respective CLIN total. If cost information is needed by the Contracting Officer to determine a fair and reasonable price, the offeror shall submit the information as requested. Evaluation of option CLINs shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options CLINs.

Offerors must provide pricing that is clearly traceable to the narrative and supporting documentation, including the Uniform Pricing Template (UPT), escalation methodology, and labor rate breakdowns.

2.2.5.2 Reasonableness

For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will determine whether the Offeror’s price is fair and reasonable using one or more techniques identified at RFO 15.404-1(b)(1)(2)(5)(6)(7), which may include:

• Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation

• Comparison to historical prices paid

• Comparison to an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE)

• Market research

• Data other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

Reasonableness will be evaluated at the TEP, CLIN, and labor category levels to ensure pricing reflects what a prudent buyer would pay in a competitive market.

2.2.5.3. Completeness

The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto.

Completeness will be assessed to ensure all required pricing elements and supporting documentation have been submitted. This includes:

• Pricing for base and option years,

• Required Uniform Pricing Templates (UPTs) with live formulas,

• Narratives explaining the methodology and assumptions used,

• Subcontractor cost and pricing data (including separate submissions if proprietary).

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submission for completeness and consistency, including the Offeror’s mapping of proposed labor categories to BLS SOC codes. Proposals lacking required elements or demonstrating internal inconsistencies may be considered incomplete and ineligible for award

2.2.5.4 Balanced / Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to cost/price, and separately priced line items.

A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government will analyze:

• Rate consistency across years and categories,

• Escalation application,

• Distribution across periods,

• Subcontractor rate consistency.

2.2.5.5 Option to Extend Services

The Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by evaluating all proposed CLINs and Option CLINS for all years of performance. The TEP will include evaluation of RFO 52.217- 8, Option to Extend Services. This option to extend the contract term shall be evaluated as part of the initial evaluation, whereby any resultant exercise of this option is within scope of the pending contract. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed six (6) months. Offerors are required only to price the base and option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six (6) month extension of services period because the Government will use the price of the final option year to calculate the price of the six (6) month extension as shown in the pricing Attachment 6.”

END OF SECTION M