Attachment 4 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award..pdf

SSP Attachment 4 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the Offeror/contractor who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, and whose proposal meets technical solution for the price/cost that is complete, reasonable, realistic, and balanced, with a realistic PECP.

The Government will determine Best Value Continuum using tradeoff procedures, in which Technical Capability (subfactor 1, 2 and 3) is more important than Past Performance (subfactor 4). Technical Capability, when combined with Past Performance is significantly more important than 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 to the Offeror who is best suited to fulfill the Air Force requirements. An IDIQ contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 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 competitive procurement through SAM.GOV. The Government intends to award one (1) IDIQ contract for the requirement. The Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

This acquisition will result in a single award Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ.

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

M.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.0 Evaluation of Gate Submittal

Gate 1: Training Facility. The Offeror’s training facility must be located in a single, dedicated location that adheres to the Government’s baseline training requirements. This facility should have the capacity to accommodate 260 one-week training sessions annually, each lasting five business days. Additionally, it must support the development of up to three courses. As specified in PWS 1.0.5.1, the facility should also be equipped to facilitate training for contractors, providing suitable classroom space for up to 20 students at any given time.

Onsite evaluation of the Offeror’s facility will take place during Gate 1 evaluation to ensure the Offeror can provide a cyber training environment IAW with the Gate 1.

To be deemed acceptable, the Offeror must meet the criteria of Gate 1. Offeror will be notified in writing of ineligibility for award.

Gate 1: Training Facility (pass/fail)

Site survey to determine the facility availability

ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS FOR GATE 1

Rating Description

Pass Proposed readily available training facility to provide training requirements.

Fail Did not propose readily available training facility to provide training requirements. .

Gate 2: Small Business Participation

Each Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the Offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The SBPP must address each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and,

iii) The goals must be expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned contracted dollars. The total Small Business participation shall be a minimum of 35% of the total planned contracted dollars.

Table 1 Small Business Participation Business Size Sub

Small Business x.x% Small Disadvantaged Business

(SDB)

x.x%

Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone) x.x%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

x.x%

Service-Disabled Veteran- Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

x.x%

Veteran-Owned Small Business

(VOSB)

x.x%

Total - a minimum of 35% x.x%

Small Business Utilization Rating

The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Participation objective of a minimum of 35% of the total planned contracted dollars. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Utilization factor. A rating of unacceptable for Small Business Participation will be considered a deficiency and render the offeror ineligible for award without revising the proposal.

Table 2 SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION RATING Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business participation objective within the terms of the requirement.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to indicate an adequate approach and understanding of the small business participation objectives within the terms of the requirement.

Submittals that do not meet the requirements and are deemed unacceptable, will not proceed to Factor 1 and Factor 2 evaluation. Offeror will be notified in writing of ineligibility for award.

Evaluation Factors

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate proposal:

Factor I – Technical:

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Subfactor 2: Management Approach Subfactor 3: Key Personnel and Project Staffing Subfactor 4: Past Performance

Factor II – Cost/Price

Evaluation Process

The evaluation process will begin with a Government review of each proposal for compliance and completeness and consistency, including the Offeror’s mapping of proposed labor categories to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. Once deemed compliant, proposals will proceed to the Technical Evaluation Team for assessment of Subfactors 1, 2, and 3. In parallel, the Past Performance Team will conduct its independent evaluation of Subfactor 4. Upon completion, proposals deemed “acceptable” of the technical and past performance assessments, will be provided to the Cost/Price Evaluation Team for a thorough review of pricing elements, including reasonableness, realism, balance, and completeness.

2.3 Factor I - Technical: The Government will evaluate how well the proposed approach demonstrates an understanding of CTAs mission as it relates to the tasks identified in the PWS to include website, online/ILV technical delivery requirements, working knowledge and experience. During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign subfactors 1-3 an adjectival Combined Technical/Risk Rating as shown below and subfactor 4 will receive an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” as shown in Sec 2.4.1. Offerors must receive a rating of Acceptable or higher on each subfactor in order to be considered technically Acceptable.

The Government intends to perform a combined technical/risk evaluation using the following adjectival ratings:

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue 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.

Purple 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.

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.

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

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

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Significant strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal of appreciable merit or will it 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 it 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. See FAR 15.001.

Significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001).

Uncertainty is any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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 weakness/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 unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

2.3.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach: This requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates the following:

2.3.1.1 The Offeror’s understanding of and comprehensive, detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 1.1, TASK 1, CTA OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION and any/all associated subtasks as set forth in the PWS. The offeror’s approach to maintaining the following accreditations;

Council on Occupational Education (COE), American Council on Education (ACE), and International Accreditors for Continuing Education and Training (IACET).

2.3.1.2 The Offeror’s understanding of the cyber investigative training, digital multi-media forensics, cyber counterintelligence and cyber security requirements of CTA’s customers within the Air Force and Department of Defense, with a detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 1.2, TASK 2, CYBER TRAINING COURSES AND CURRICULUM and any/all associated subtasks as set forth in the PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall set forth the technical approach to course development (consistent with the requirements set out in the PWS TASK 2) with emphasis on efficiency, development and complementary integration and use of course materials across the curriculum. The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the DoD Cyber Workforce Framework (DCWF) and how it will be utilized to realize modular and reconfigurable courses and curriculum.

2.3.1.3 The Offeror’s understanding of and comprehensive, detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 1.3, TASK 3, CYBER TRAINING ENVIRONMENT AND CAPABILITIES and any/all associated sub tasks as set forth in the PWS. It is important the Offeror’s proposal demonstrate a highly professional institutional landing page that highlights training offerings through a dynamic calendar, provides for up to date news about the academy and is intuitive and easy to use. As a small representative example, if CIRC were shown on the page calendar, clicking the course (from the calendar) would bring up the student registration option for that specific instance of the course. Students should not be required to search for, look up or otherwise endeavor to locate a selected training offering to register for the course.

2.3.1.4 The Offeror’s understanding of and comprehensive, detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 1.4, TASK 4, CYBER TRAINING DELIVERY and any/all associated subtasks as set forth in the PWS. Offeror shall demonstrate its ability to deliver Asynchronous, Online, and In-residence training.

2.3.1.5 The Offeror’s understanding of and comprehensive, detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 1.5, TASK 5, MOBILE TRAINING TEAMS and any/all associated actions as set forth in the PWS.

2.3.1.6 The Offeror’ complementary and cooperative approach to program administration, program management and program support services as set forth in Section 1.6, TASK 6, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT. Of critical import is the understanding of and thoughtful approach to establishing and maintaining a comprehensive, mutually supportive program leadership environment between the contractor and the government staff. Additionally, the Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate a clear understanding of and proactive approach to problem identification and resolution.

2.3.1.7 The Offeror’s understanding of and comprehensive, detailed approach to meeting the requirements set forth in Section 1.7, TASK 7, ADDITIONAL CYBER TRAINING CLASSROOM and any/all associated actions as set forth in the PWS.

2.3.2 Subfactor 2: Management Approach: This subfactor will be evaluated when the offeror adequately demonstrated an acceptable approach to manage personnel along with an acceptable approach to efficiently and proactively manage this contract IAW the PWS. To be considered acceptable the Offeror’s approach shall demonstrate the following:

2.3.2.1 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 of this TO from a management perspective, with emphasis on a mutually supportive approach that is risk conscious, innovative, cooperative and cost conscious.

2.3.2.2 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.

2.3.2.3 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.

2.3.2.4 A comprehensive, effective, and relevant approach/ability to provide SME support for course development efforts, emergent cyber training requirements and for reacting to the Government’s requirements within the dynamics of a changing world and mission environment through dedicated resources, quick responses, and flexibility when determining solutions.

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

2.3.2.6 The Offeror’s Transition-In Plan demonstrates the ability to provide integrated and seamless support with minimum to no risk to mission during transition.

2.3.2.7 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 PWS.

2.3.1 Subfactor 3: Key Personnel and Project Staffing: This subfactor will be evaluated when the offeror adequately demonstrates an acceptable approach to staff, recruit, retain and replace personnel with experience required to perform the full rate of tasks defined in the PWS.

2.3.1.1 : We will evaluate the Offeror's approach to choosing key personnel IAW PWS 1.6.11, including how each key person would contribute to the management team, their relevant functional area, and specific tasks/subtasks, as well as the relevance of their qualifications and experience to the key personnel positions for which they are proposed.

2.3.1.2 : The evaluation will assess the Offeror's projected staffing plan, including their approach to assigning personnel to each task and subtask, estimated hours and labor mix of Key and non-Key personnel, expected work locations, tele-work arrangements, clearance levels, and the functional knowledge and experience of personnel in relation to the PWS areas they support.

2.3.1.3 : We will evaluate the value added by non-Key personnel to the project team, including their complementary roles, specific skills, experience, and qualifications, to determine how they enhance the overall project team.

2.3.1.4 : The evaluation will examine the Offeror's strategy for leveraging experience and knowledge, including the use of Subject Matter Experts (SME) reach-back support, to ensure that the project team has access to the necessary expertise.

2.3.1.5 : We will assess the Offeror's approach to providing qualified personnel across all functional areas of the PWS, including the identification of specific individuals by name, their relevant training, experience, and education, and how these qualifications align with the program areas they support.

2.4.1 Subfactor 4: Past Performance: The Government will evaluate past performance based on Government and Non-Government contracts or subcontracts relative to previous work for the same or similar services provided for currently on-going or completed work within the last three years. The Government will only evaluate three (3) examples of past performance identified per the Offeror through submission of Attachment 6 – Past Performance Questionnaire. The Government may contact sources other than those identified by the Offeror.

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.

• 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. 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 and Price factors, including their relative order of importance. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical and Cost/Price Factors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). 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 Relevancy 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 FAR 15.305. 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.

M.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA: FACTOR II - COST/PRICE

The Government will evaluate the Cost/Price Volume to determine whether proposed prices are complete, reasonable, realistic, and balanced. The Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) will be assessed as part of the overall price realism evaluation, in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. The PECP will not receive a separate adjectival rating; however, it may impact the realism assessment if the Government determines the compensation package to be inadequate to recruit and retain qualified professional employees.

The Cost/Price evaluation will include assessment of the following five criteria:

1. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

2. Reasonableness

3. Realism (including PECP)

4. Completeness

5. Balanced/Unbalanced Pricing

3.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will consist of the Offeror’s total proposed price for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), including all five (5) one-year ordering periods. The Government will use this TEP solely for evaluation purposes. Any Not-to-Exceed (NTE) CLINs will be reviewed for compliance but will not be evaluated for award purposes. Rates proposed at the IDIQ level will be incorporated into the contract and used to establish pricing for future task orders.

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.

3.2 Reasonableness

The Government will determine whether the Offeror’s price is fair and reasonable using one or more techniques identified at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), which may include:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, Comparison to historical prices paid, Comparison to an Independent Government Estimate (IGE), Market research.

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

3.3 Realism (Including PECP)

The Government will assess whether the Offeror’s proposed pricing is realistic for the effort required, consistent with the proposed technical approach, and reflective of a sound understanding of the solicitation.

Realism evaluation includes:

1. PECP Evaluation (FAR 52.222-46): The Government will review the Offeror’s unburdened salary and fringe benefit information for all professional labor categories (those requiring at least an associate’s degree). The assessment may:

• Compare salary + fringe to BLS, OPM, and industry compensation benchmarks;

• Evaluate market competitiveness for the proposed geographic area;

• Verify data using one or more of the following: FPRAs, PBRs, or six months of actual billing data;

• Include comparison to other Offerors’ compensation levels, if available.

This is a targeted review of total compensation realism—not a cost audit.

2. Fully Burdened Rate Evaluation: The Government will compare proposed fully burdened labor rates across all categories and performance years to historical pricing, market research, and other Offerors’ proposals. This serves to:

• Identify labor rates that appear unrealistically low and may indicate performance risk;

• Confirm that proposed pricing aligns with the Offeror’s technical and staffing approach.

Indirect rates will only be reviewed as necessary to understand how the fully burdened rate was developed.

The Government will not evaluate indirect cost pools or conduct a separate cost realism analysis.

Unrealistically low compensation may result in an upward adjustment for evaluation purposes. Excessively high compensation may be questioned for realism but will not automatically result in a downward adjustment

3.4. Completeness

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

• Pricing for base and ordering periods,

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

• Narratives explaining the methodology and assumptions used,

• The PECP (if applicable),

• 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

3.5 Balanced / Unbalanced Pricing

Unbalanced pricing exists when individual CLINs or cost elements are significantly overstated or understated, potentially increasing risk or distorting evaluation. The Government will analyze:

• Rate consistency across years and categories,

• Escalation application,

• Distribution across periods,

• Subcontractor rate consistency.

The Government reserves the right to reject a proposal if unbalanced pricing poses unacceptable risk.

END OF SECTION M