Attachment 5 - Instruct_to_Offerors_Eval Criteria.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

RFP No. DJF-22-2200-PR-0002000

Aircraft Mechanic Support Services

Attachment 5 – Instructions to Offerors and Basis for Award

Omissions

Failure to submit any of the information requested by this solicitation may be cause for unfavorable consideration.

Confidential Information and Freedom of Information Act

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its amendments have resulted in an increasing number of requests from outside the Government for copies of contract qualifications and proposals submitted to federal agencies. If an Offeror’s submissions contain information that he/she believes should be withheld from such requestors under FOIA on the grounds that they contain “trade secrets and commercial or financial information” [5 USC §552(b)(4)], the Offeror should mark its submissions in the following manner:

The following notice should be placed on the title page: “Some parts of this document, as identified on individual pages, are considered by the submitter to be privileged or confidential trade secrets or commercial or financial information not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Material considered privileged or confidential on such grounds is contained on page(s) .”

Each individual item considered privileged or confidential under FOIA should be marked with the following notice: “The data or information is considered confidential or privileged and is not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.”

Authorized Official and Submission of Proposals

The proposal must be signed by an official authorized to bind the organization and should stipulate that it is predicated upon all the terms and conditions of this RFP.

1.0 – PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 – Contracting Approach

The Government contemplates award of a single Fixed Priced Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite

Quantity (ID/IQ) contract resulting from this solicitation. The FBI Aircraft Mechanic ID/IQ will be procured under FAR Part 15 Contracting by Negotiation competitive acquisition procedures and is set-aside 100% for small business concerns under NAICS code 488190, Other Support

Activities for Air Transportation. This resulting contract shall have a one-year (1) base period, plus four (4) one-year options (i.e., 60 months) ordering period. Task Orders will be Fixed Priced based on an estimated level of effort with Time & Material and Cost CLIN’s for overtime and travel/ODCs.

1.2 - Source Selection Approach

The Government intends to award a single award ID/IQ contract to a responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government for various units by supplying Aviation

Mechanics to assist with executing the mission and vision of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

All specified Factors will be evaluated in accordance with the specified evaluation criteria.

“Best Value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirements. The

Government may award the contract without discussion, unless the CO determines discussions are necessary. In addition, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, the availability of funding, and the continued existence of the requirement.

2.0 – PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

Offerors are encouraged to submit questions (during the Question and Answer (Q&A) period) to the designated points of contact in the event inconsistencies are found among these instructions and/or any of the RFP documents.

Any company proprietary data included in proposals must be clearly identified as such. Each page containing proprietary data shall be marked at the top and bottom of the page. The front and back covers of each proposal volume containing proprietary data shall also be marked.

Failure to adhere to any of the labeling, marking, packaging, or any other general proposal instructions may cause the Government to reject the Offeror’s proposal in its entirety.

2.1 - Organization, Number of Copies and Content

The offeror shall prepare and submit proposals as set forth in the Organization Table below.

Organization Table

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE COPIES PAGE LIMIT

I Executive

Summary/Security 1 Electronic 5 pages not including KMPL, ARQ and Facility Clearance

Printout.

II Special Certifications 1 Electronic 10 pages

III Past Performance 1 Electronic See Past Performance

Questionnaires

IV Management and

Technical Approach 1 Electronic 75 pages

IVa.

Subfactor: Technical

Approach 1 Electronic Included in above

IVb.

Subfactor: Management

Approach/Staffing Plan 1 Electronic Included in above

IVc.

Subfactor: Transition Plan 1 Electronic Included in above

V Price 1 Electronic None

The proposal volumes, titles, maximum pages, and other related information are listed below.

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross-reference to other volumes. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

Offerors shall comply with the submission requirements below.

2.2.1 - Proposal Format

To aid in the evaluation, all proposals shall follow the same general format. Page limitations for each Volume described in the above section are independent from each other. Page limits on final proposal revisions, if required, will be provided as part of the request for revised proposals letter. All pages submitted by Offerors in excess of the limitations contained in these instructions will be removed and returned to the Offeror by the Contracting Officer. Excess pages will not be considered during evaluation of the proposal.

A page is defined as each face of an 8-1/2 x 11-inch sheet containing information. Use 1-inch margins on the top and bottom and 1-inch left and right margins. All material must be contained within the page limit identified for each volume or appendix, unless otherwise specified. Partial pages count as a full page for page limitation purposes. All pages within a page-limited volume shall be consecutively numbered, starting at page one, and not exceeding the page limitation. The

CO will remove and return pages submitted by Offerors in excess of the limitations contained in these instructions without evaluation.

Charts, tables, or diagrams shall not exceed an 8-1/2 x 11-inch sized sheet of paper. Figure callouts (identification and titles) shall be single- spaced. The font size for illustrations and tables shall be no less than:

a) Art: 8-point Times New Roman;

b) Tables: 8-point Times New Roman; and

c) Titles: 10-point Times New Roman, bold.

Charts, tables, and diagrams are for supplemental information only. Any attempt to include large amounts of narrative within artwork and tables is not permitted. Any such practice is considered a deliberate attempt to circumvent the page limitations, and the data will not be considered for evaluation.

Cost/Price information data shall only be included in Volume V. Any pages concerning or related to cost/price found outside of Volume V (i.e., found within another Volume) will be removed and destroyed by the CO without being evaluated.

2.1.2 - Table of Contents, Cross Reference Matrix, Glossary

A Table of Contents shall be incorporated into Volumes 1 and 3, and shall include a listing of the section titles, subsection titles, paragraph titles, and any tables or graphs that are included within the proposal. Page numbers for each title shall be indicated. For clarity and completeness of presentation, the Offeror shall provide a cross-reference matrix for Volume 1 indicating the proposal volume section, subsection, and paragraph; cross-referenced with the appropriate SOW paragraphs and item number, applicable RFP instructions, evaluation criteria, and deliverables, as applicable. A glossary of acronyms shall also be provided. All acronyms shall be defined at first use. These pages shall not be included in the page count and shall follow the numbering guidelines established above.

Softcopy submissions shall contain hyperlinks or cross-references where reference is made to other sections, tables, or figures within that document. Offerors shall make the existence of hyperlinks or cross-references obvious by using a different font color, underlining, or other methods to highlight hyperlinks. The softcopy submission shall also contain a Table of Contents with hyperlinks that facilitates the ease of navigation within the selected document. The features native to Microsoft Office applications should be used to accomplish this navigation feature.

Hyperlinks or cross-references shall not be used to link items between different documents or proposal items.

3 - PROPOSAL VOLUME INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 – Volume I - Executive Summary/ Security

Included in this volume, the Offeror must provide the following:

• Contractor’s name, address,

• Authorized Point of Contact (POC) telephone number, and email address,

• Tax ID, DUNS, Cage Codes,

• Subcontracting plans/teaming agreements (if applicable),

• Signed original of an Amendment to the solicitation (if applicable),

• KMPL - Attachment 6 (a separate KMPL for each prime/subcontractor/teaming member)

• ARQ - Attachment 6 (a separate ARQ for each prime/subcontractor/teaming member)

• Offeror must confirm they have a Department of Defense (DoD) Secret facility security clearance at time of proposal submission, and include their Industrial Security Facility

Database print out (for each prime/subcontractor/teaming member).

• Any additional representations and certifications, not included in the System Acquisition

Management (SAM) data for the prime and any proposed subcontractors.

3.2 – Volume II – Special Certifications

14 CFR Part 135 and/or 145 corporate certification is required. Offeror must provide a copy of their 14 CFR part 135 and/or 145 certification for the prime contractor under this volume.

3.3 – Volume III - Past Performance

Offerors shall submit the following information with their proposal:

Past Performance Information (PPI)- Offeror shall submit a description of contracts performed or awarded in the past five (5) years (of the solicitation issue date) as a prime contractor, or significant Subcontractors. A significant subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor responsible for 25% or more of the performance required. Offerors shall submit at least three (3) and no more than five (5) past contracts for this factor.

Offerors are cautioned to take care in selecting relevant contracts for review that accurately reflect the Offeror’s past performance capabilities. The Offeror shall include past performance that reflects relevance to requirements of the solicitation on the basis of similarity in size, scope, complexity, technical difficulty, contract type, dollar value and period of performance. Please note that if the Offeror chooses to provide more than five (5) contracts, the Government will evaluate only the first five (5) contracts submitted under this evaluation factor. Any additional contracts submitted beyond the five (5) requested will NOT be evaluated.

a. PPI Submission Requirements: The Offeror shall furnish the following information for each contract provided as a Past Performance reference.

1. Company/Division Name

2. Contracting Activity

3. Brief description

4. Contract Number

5. Contract Type (FFP, T&M, CPFF, etc.)

6. Total Contract Value

7. Period of Performance

8. Up to date name, address, facsimile and telephone number of the CO and Program

Manager

9. Comments regarding any known problems/challenges in referenced contracts and how those problems were resolved

If the Offeror has previously had an opportunity to respond to any adverse past performance information, a copy of that response shall be included in the Offeror’s proposal.

Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ): Note: The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire

(see Attachment 7) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s). The offeror shall send out – and track the completion of - the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See Attachment 7) to each of the offeror’s, joint venture member’s and/or critical subcontractors’ (i.e., each entity’s) Points of

Contact (POCs) identified in each past performance profile sheet. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror - i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity. Exert your best effort to ensure that at least two POCs per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance

Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. POCs shall submit their completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire via email directly to: jbjackson@fbi.gov, and sbtrowbridge@fbi.gov by the proposal due date.

The Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance Volume. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Government may obtain other information by sending out additional questionnaires and through other sources, other than those listed in the offerors response.

3.4 – Volume IV - Management and Technical Approach

The Management and Technical Approach volume shall be specific, detailed, and complete to clearly and fully demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirement for the accomplishment of the effort. Where required, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying the factor. This volume shall be cross-referenced to the appropriate evaluation criteria and SOW paragraphs. The Volume shall also be organized into sections corresponding to the evaluation factors/subfactors described in this section and the corresponding evaluation criteria. Within each section, the Offeror shall address each evaluation criterion described in the solicitation, with a discussion in sufficient detail to allow evaluation of the criterion. Statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof; and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used” etc., will be considered non-responsive. All information the offeror deems appropriate to address this factor and its subfactors must be included in the proposal in an orderly format.

Absolutely NO cost/price information shall be included in any part of the Management/Technical

Approach Volume. Any sections/pages of the Management/Technical Approach Volume containing cost/price information shall be removed by the CO and returned to the Offeror without evaluation. The technical volume shall address all the technical subfactors below.

3.4.1 – Volume IVa. - Technical Approach

The Offeror shall provide a narrative which clearly demonstrates its understanding of the government requirements as identified in the SOW (Attachment 1). The Offeror shall address mailto:sbtrowbridge@fbi.gov each section/unit listed in the SOW and demonstrate a clear understanding of associated tasks. The Offeror should address major points and strengths of its approach for contract performance pertaining to its experience, knowledge, and capability to provide the general scope, services, and capabilities as described in the SOW. A mere restatement of the requirements may result in a deficiency and Red/Unacceptable rating.

3.4.2 – Volume IVb. - Management Approach/Staffing Plan

Management Approach: Management approach shall provide succinct descriptions of the management structure, process, and procedures to be used to plan, monitor, control and deliver required services. Management approach shall also include problem resolution including the Offeror’s processes for identification, notification and rectification of problems that may occur during the life of the contract. The Offeror shall provide for organization roles and responsibilities as related to upcoming problems and resolutions and program management.

Staffing Plan: Staffing shall address corporate recruitment methods, verification processes used to determine staff qualifications, workforce improvement and retention programs and processes for backfilling or replacing staff. Details should clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s approach for meeting requirements and ability to recruit and retain staff in support of this effort. The Offeror shall explain how the Offeror’s Staffing Plan adequately provides full staffing within 30 days of the award. Any unique concepts or elements of approach which convey a deeper understanding of the requirements should also be included.

3.4.3 – Volume IVc. - Transition Plan

The Offeror shall provide a narrative which clearly demonstrates its approach and ability to transition the contract in a manner that consistently and efficiently meets the requirements.

The Transition Plan narrative should clearly demonstrate the offeror’s ability to accomplish a seamless transition from the incumbent to a new awardee with minimal disruptions of ongoing services. The narrative should clearly describe the offeror’s 30 day Transition Plan, detailing activities and schedule for transition of incumbent work and knowledge. The narrative should also clearly describe the offeror’s method for managing the transition process and the roles and responsibilities for completing the transition process. The

Government shall consider a simple re-stating of the requirements presented in the SOW as deficient.

3.5 – Volume V - Price

Offeror shall complete blocks 12, 17a, and 30a, b, and c of the SF1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the Solicitation, with attachments. The

Solicitation constitutes the model contract. Insert proposed fully burdened fixed labor rates for labor categories within the attached pricing sheet (Attachment 02).

The Quote(s) must be submitted for a base year plus four (4) Option Years.

The Pricing Volume shall contain a statement signed by an officer of the company that certifies that he/she understands that the rates for personnel proposed for the contract are subject to the

Service Contract Labor Standards Act and the attached Collective Bargaining Agreement

(Attachment 3). The Pricing Volume shall also contain the following:

A. Date of submission;

B. Name, title, and signature of authorized representative

C. A statement that the proposal is valid for a period of not less than one hundred and twenty (120) days from the proposal submission date.

D. Supporting rationale for pricing methodology.

4.0 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

4.1 – Basis for Award

The Government contemplates award of one (1) Fixed Priced Indefinite Delivery Indefinite

Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a period of performance of a one (1) year period with four (4) one-year option periods. In deciding which offeror represents the best overall value, the Government perform a trade-off analysis. The Government’s analysis will be based on the following factors:

EVALUATION FACTOR RATING METHOD

I. Security Pass/Fail

A. ARQ and KPML Pass/Fail

B. Industrial Security Facility Clearance Pass/Fail

II. Special Certifications Pass/Fail

III. Past Performance Adjectival

IV. Management/Technical Approach Adjectival (based on subfactors)

A. Technical Approach Adjectival

B. Management and Staffing Plan Adjectival

C. Transition Plan Adjectival

V. Price Considered under Factor IV below

4.2 – Relative Order of Importance

Security and Special Certifications will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. If the Offeror fails one or the other, no other factors below will be considered.

The Government will consider Management and Technical Approach and Past Performance to be more important than the price. Past Performance is more important than Management and

Technical Approach. Management and Technical approach subfactors are of equal importance.

The best value selection decision will be made as described below:

- The total evaluated price will be the determining factor for award among proposals considered substantially equal in the areas of management/technical approach and past performance. The

Contracting Officer has the right to determine whether two or more technical proposals are

"substantially equal" or whether any differences in technical approach are "significant" for purposes of evaluating the overall merit of proposals.

- If the Government determines that there are significant differences in technical merit among competing proposals, then a higher priced proposal may be selected for award where the

Government determines that the technical value obtained by the selected proposal is worth the price differential.

4.3 - Evaluation Ratings

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the specific factors and standards described below.

4.3.1 – Factor I - Security

Security factor will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. If the Offeror fails this factor, no other factors below will be considered. The Offeror must validate its current DoD facility security clearance by attaching a copy of Offeror’s Industrial Security Facility Database print out.

Additionally, the offeror must provide completed copies of Attachment 6 – ARQ and KPML for each prime/subcontractor/teaming member.

Rating Description

Pass

The Offeror possesses a Secret or above Industrial Security Facility Clearance and has provided completed ARQ and KPML’s for each prime/subcontractor/teaming member.

Fail

The Offeror does not possess a Secret or above Industrial Security Facility

Clearance, and/or has not provided completed ARQ and KPML’s for each prime/subcontractor/teaming member.

4.3.1 – Factor II – Special Certifications

Special Certification factor will be evaluated on a pass/fail bases, if the Offeror fails this factor, no other factors below will be considered. Prime contractor must possess a 14 CFR Part 135 and/or Part 145 Air Carrier and Operator Certification.

Rating Description

Pass The Offeror possesses 14 CFR Part 135 and/or 145 Air Carrier and Operator

Certification.

Fail The Offeror does not possess 14 CFR Part 135 and/or 145 Air Carrier and

Operator Certification.

4.3.2 – Factor III Past Performance

Past Performance Assessment: The Offeror’s past performance record will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the Contract requirements. This assessment is based upon the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information regarding aircraft mechanic support services. The evaluation of Past Performance is a subjective assessment of the Offeror’s Past Performance on contracts of a similar nature, size, scope, and complexity, utilizing a comparable number of personnel with like skills. The

Government will consider the Offeror’s previous and current record of contractual performance.

In this context, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor and significant subcontractors, if applicable. The Government will consider the combined Offeror’s and proposed subcontractor’s past performance in providing services consistent with the scope and complexity of our requirement during the last five (5) calendar years. The Government will assess the

Offeror’s Team to determine whether the team displays the depth and breadth of experience necessary to demonstrate an acceptable history of performance relative to the solicitation requirements in the SOW.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information.

i. Recency – Recency, for this requirement, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant is defined as government and/or commercial contracts at least 70% completed to be determined relevant. In this requirement, recency is defined as five (5) years.

ii. Relevancy – A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present and past performance, including joint venture partners and/or significant subcontractors will be made

(significant subcontractor meaning a subcontractor responsible for 25% or more of the performance required). Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source RFP requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. The relevancy table below will be used in determining the relevancy rating for each offeror.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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

Relevant Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

iii. Quality – Overall quality of the past performance submitted will be assessed on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires

(PPQs), interviews, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING

High Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Significant

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, some doubt exists that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal

Contractor emphasis should preclude any problems

Unknown

Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned

Limited

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exist that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the FBI Source

Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance

Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s

Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information

System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The

Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources.

Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented.

The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

Neutral Past Performance Rating: In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, or the quality of relevant Past Performance submitted cannot be determined, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror's past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of "neutral." The

Source Selection Authority may determine that a "Substantial Confidence" or

"Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral

Confidence" past performance rating

4.3.3– Factor IV Management/Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s management/technical approach based on the following subfactors.

Subfactor A. – Technical Approach - The Government will evaluate the

Offeror’s approach for performing the requirements and the demonstrated level of understanding of the requirements, positions, and the associated tasks as listed in the

SOW (Attachment 1). The evaluation will include an assessment of the risks associated with the Offeror’s level of understanding.

Subfactor B. – Management approach/ Staffing Plan - The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to the management structure, process, and procedures to be used to plan, monitor, control and deliver required services, the problem resolution to include the Offeror’s processes for identification, notification and rectification of problems that may occur during the life of the contract. The Offeror’s staffing plan will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror provided a Staffing Plan that clearly demonstrates their ability to recruit and retain qualified staff in support of this effort as required by the SOW, if the Offeror’s Staffing Plan demonstrated the Offeror’s clear understanding of the government requirements as outlined in the SOW and the offeror’s ability to address issues arising from staffing and contract management. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for the strengths and weaknesses associated with the Offeror’s recruitment and retention plans, contract management approach, and the Offeror’s ability to respond to rapidly emerging issues and conditions.

Subfactor C. – Transition Plan - The Transition Plan will be used to determine the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offer’s ability to accomplish a seamless transition from the incumbent to a new awardee with minimal disruptions of ongoing services, as described in the SOW. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the ability to describe a 30-day Transition Plan that details activities and schedule for transition of incumbent work and knowledge, the method for managing the transition process and if the Transition Plan describes the roles and responsibilities for completing the transition process appropriately. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The color/adjectival rating scale and description associated with each rating utilized by the government is presented in the Table below.

Color Rating Description

Blue Exceptional Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Exceeds performance or capability standards noticeably by demonstrating multiple significant strengths. No weaknesses or deficiencies noted. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Exceeds some performance or capability standards by demonstrating one or more strengths. No or few weaknesses noted, and they are offset by the strengths. No significant weaknesses or deficiencies identified. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Weaknesses are minor or will have little or no impact on contract performance. No deficiencies exist. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no higher than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirements.

Errors and omissions may exist. One or more weaknesses or significant weaknesses are noted. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful performance is guaranteed.

Factor V – Price

The total value of each base and option will be a calculation of applicable hourly rates multiplied by the corresponding labor hours for all labor categories specified in the solicitation. The Offeror will be evaluated on the price proposal for a 12-month base year and four (4) one-year options in accordance with the requirements of this solicitation.

Price will be evaluated based on the total value of all base and option years, as tallied on the “Summary” worksheet in the Government provided pricing attachment (Attachment

2).

The Offeror will be evaluated on the reasonableness of total proposed price. The

Government will evaluate each proposal using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. The Offeror shall use the Government-provided

Excel Pricing Workbook (Attachment 2) to develop the price. The pricing information will be evaluated in the exact format of RFP Attachment 2, which includes a breakdown for the base and all option periods (four 12- month periods) for each CLIN. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained and/or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information may be required to support the proposed price. The

Government reserves the right to assess and reject a quote if the price proposed is unrealistically low for the work to be performed. This could be accomplished by the following but not limited to, comparison of offerors’ proposed pricing to an Independent

Government Estimate, the prices proposed by other offerors, and/or historical pricing.

Offerors are encouraged to provide their best pricing with the initial submission, as the

Government reserves the right to award based on initial submission and without discussions. Award will not be made to an Offeror whose price is determined to not be fair and reasonable.