Attachment 5 Section - L and M.pdf

Attachment 5 Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

I. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT

1. Instructions to the Offerors (ITO): These instructions prescribe the format of proposals and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. They are designed to ensure the submission of information essential to the understanding and comprehensive validation of proposals. The instructions permit the inclusion of any data or information an offeror deems pertinent.

Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government intends to make award without discussion based on the proposals received.

2. Point of Contact: Jennifer Cashwell is the Contracting Specialist (CS) point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions, concerns, or requests for clarification to Jennifer at Jennifer.Cashwell.2@us.af.mil. After Request for Proposal (RFP) release, it is requested that any questions or clarifications be submitted within ten (10) days of the RFP release date. The decision whether to respond to questions and requests for clarification submitted after ten (10) days shall be at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer (CO), Matt Stinson. The subject line for these emails shall read:

“Source Selection Information, See FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104, RFP FA8601-23-R-0008, Paving and Grounds IDIQ Q&A”. The Government intends to post all questions, including Government responses, and RFP amendments (if applicable) to http://sam.gov, therefore, vendors are encouraged to phrase questions for public consumption. In the event of a conflict between the answers to the questions and the RFP, the RFP shall take precedence.

3. Include Sufficient Detail. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

4. Debriefings. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

5. Discrepancies. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the CS in writing with supporting rationale. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

6. Mandatory Submission. The offeror shall submit an electronic copy of the SF 1442, including the proposed amount in block 17, appropriate signatures, and acknowledge all amendments as required, along with Schedule B through Section M. Bid Bonds are not required to be submitted.

7. Proposal Requirement: Proposals that do not comply with the above requirements may be considered non-responsive to the solicitation.

8. Notice to Offerors: Funds are not presently available for this requirement. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available. The Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date. In the event the Government cancels this solicitation, the Government has no obligation to reimburse an offeror for any costs. If only one offer is received, the mailto:Jennifer.Cashwell.2@us.af.mil http://sam.gov/ offeror will be asked to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-5.

9. Joint Ventures: If the offeror is a joint venture (JV), the Offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the (JV) agreement with proposal. The agreement shall include information which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the JV. If the JV is comprised of 8(a) firms, the Small Business Administration (SBA) must approve the JV agreement prior to award. Either party to the JV may submit performance information on behalf of the JV. JV performance will be evaluated and rated based on either party’s performance. The SBA must receive JV Agreements prior to proposal due date and approved before award of a resulting contract. If a JV is contemplated, then the assigned SBA Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS) must be advised as soon as possible. Ensure the agreement is submitted to the BOS in sufficient time to permit a regulatory compliance review. Any corrections and/or changes requested must allow for review time by the BOS before the proposal due date. No corrections and/or changes are permitted after the time for submission of offers.

10. Teaming/Partnering: If the offer is based on a teaming/partnering relationship, the Offeror shall provide all required solicitation information for all parties including a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement. The agreement shall include information, which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this contract, including each company’s responsibility for financial management of the venture. The agreement shall demonstrate the relationship between firms and identify contractual relationships and authorities to bind each entity of the teaming/partnering relationship.

11. Multiple Companies: If a company has multiple business ventures, only one of their business ventures will be allowed to submit a proposal.

12. Mentor/Protégé Program: For information regarding the SBA’s Mentor- Protégé Program see:

http://www.sba.gov/.

13. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limitations: The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in Table 1, Proposal Organization and Page Limits, all of which shall be within the required Page Limits specified in the table. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the following table:

Table 1: Proposal Organization and Page Limits

Volum e

Volume Title

Page Limit

I

Technical SubFactor 1: ACI Certifications

Unlimited

Technical SubFactor 2: HMA Certifications

Technical SubFactor 3: Superintendent

Experience

Technical SubFactor 4: Work Experience

II

Price

13.1 Electronic Submission: The offeror shall submit their proposal by electronic submission via the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation application. A confirmation of http://www.sba.gov/ receipt will be sent to each offeror once the proposal has been received by the Government. If this confirmation is not received, please contact Jennifer Cashwell prior to the submission deadline time.

13.2 Page Limitations: Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If limitations are exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Each page shall be counted, except as indicated in the paragraph below. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors.

13.3 Page Size and Format: Page sizes should be 8.5-inch by 11-inch excluding any drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets shall not be limited in size. Margins shall be no smaller than 1-inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. All font shall be Times New Roman, black, and the size shall be no smaller than 12 point. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked. Elaborate formats or color presentations are not desired or required. Reference Table 1 for page limitations by volume.

II. OFFER PROPOSAL CONTENT

1. To assure timely and evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. The response shall consist of two (2) separate factors: Factor 1 – Technical Proposal;

and Factor 2 – Price Proposal.

2. The CO has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition.

Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination and if, in the CO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. Information shall be provided IAW FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the Offeror shall be required to submit cost or pricing data.

Factor 1 - Technical proposal

This factor is acceptable when the proposal satisfies all requirements for each subfactor.

Subfactor 1: American Concrete Institution (ACI) Certifications

This sub-factor will evaluate whether an offeror and/or subcontractors have access to certified personnel with demonstrable knowledge about and the ability to place, consolidate, finish, edge, joint, cure, protect and maintain quality control, pertaining to transportation projects. The required documentation to fulfill this subfactor are the following ACI certifications or evidence of pursuance:

i.) Field Concrete Testing

a. Concrete Field Testing Technician – Grade I ii.) Laboratory Concrete Testing

a. Concrete Strength Testing Technician iii.) Aggregate Testing

a. Aggregate Testing Technician – Level 1

Note: ACI Concrete Laboratory Testing Technician – Level 1 certification fulfills Laboratory Concrete Testing and Aggregate Testing certification requirements.

See: https://www.concrete.org/certification/ for information on above certificates and verification source.

Subfactor 2: Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Certifications

This sub-factor will evaluate whether an offeror and/or proposed subcontractors have access to certified personnel with demonstrable knowledge about and the ability to place, finish, cure, and protect Asphalt Pavements, including supervision, quality control, and inspection of work.

Acceptable certifying entities are Flexible Pavements of Ohio, or if from another state, another industry accreditation organization that provides quality control training based on state-specific Department of Transportation (DOT) policies for the required certifications. The required documentation to fulfill this subfactor are valid certificates, from an acceptable certifying entity, for the following certifications:

i.) Asphalt Quality Control Technician (ODOT Level 2 Asphalt Technician or another state’s DOT equivalent level certification) ii.) Asphalt Field Quality Control Supervisor

See https://www.flexiblepavements.org/ and https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/ or information on above certificates and verification source.

Subfactor 3: Project Superintendent – Previous Work Experience

This sub-factor will evaluate whether the offeror will employ a Project Superintendent with experience on pavement projects. The required documentation to fulfill this subfactor is, at a minimum, a resume of the proposed Project Superintendent with detailed work history evidencing at least 10 years of experience as a superintendent for pavement projects. Documentation shall include the name of the employer, a point of contact for that employer, and the title of the position held during the period of employment.

Subfactor 4: Offeror - Previous Work Experience This sub-factor will evaluate whether an offeror and proposed subcontractors, if applicable, have both the skills in management of pavement and completed other transportation systems projects with similar size and scope to this requirement with respect to Quality Control, Quality Assurance and timeliness. At a minimum, the required documentation to fulfill this subfactor are separate synopses of at least 3 separate projects completed within the past 5 years that have no record of warranty calls that pertain to any craftsmanship details, no record of customers rejecting any installation of material in a Quality Assurance inspection that should have been identified in a contractor’s Quality Control inspections, and were completed in the timeline of the proposed contract documents without any extensions at the request of the contractor; any extensions granted must have been at the request of the customer or due to the addition of scope. The synopses shall identify the customer and a point of contact for the customer for each project. In addition to the aforementioned minimum documentation, the synopses evidencing previous work experience shall, at a minimum, include the following project features:

i. Repair by mill and overlay of asphalt, with a minimum value of $100,000.

ii. Replacement of pavement by removal of surface and base course, installation of underdrains, and replacement of curb and gutters, with a minimum value of $100,000.

iii. Replacement of existing sidewalk with new sidewalk that did not previously comply with accessibility standards such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), with a minimum value of $10,000

iv. Installation where none previously existed or Replacement & upgrade of traffic lighting system, with a minimum value of $25,000.

https://www.concrete.org/certification/ https://www.flexiblepavements.org/ https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/

Factor 2 - Price and Offer Documentation: In the Price and Offer Documentation the offeror shall:

A. Provide a cover letter with the following offeror information:

i. Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code

ii. Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number

iii. Provide the name(s), title(s), telephone number(s), and email address(es) of the individual(s) authorized to:

i. Make decisions on behalf of the offeror regarding the proposal submitted,

ii. Negotiate with the Government, and

iii. Obligate the offeror contractually.

iv. Provide in the cover letter a statement that the proposal and prices therein will remain in effect for 200 days after the date in Block 20c of the SF 1442.

B. Provide a completed copy of the SF 1442. The offeror shall complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20a, 20b, and 20c of the SF 1442 cover sheet. Block 17 shall be equal to the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as calculated on Attachment 4. All ‘fill-in’ provisions included in the SF 1442 shall be completed prior to proposal submission. The offeror shall enter unit prices and extended prices for CLINs 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001 and 5001. State all prices in United States Currency (USD) using only rounded to two (2) decimal place dollar amounts (in order to avoid potential rounding issues). Signature by the offeror on the SF 1442 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

C. The offeror shall submit the completed Bid Schedule (Attachment 4 to the solicitation) as part their proposal. If there is a discrepancy between the pricing found on the SF 1442 and the Bid Schedule, the SF 1442 prices will be used to determine the offeror’s price.

• To complete the Bid Schedules offeror shall fill in all green highlighted cells with proposed prices by CLIN for each Ordering Period. Each Ordering Period will have its own sheet in the excel document.

• Input all prices in United States Currency (USD) using only rounded to two (2) decimal place dollar amounts (in order to avoid potential rounding issues).

• The Bid Schedules will calculate the total proposed price for each Ordering Period based on offeror inputs, and totals for each Ordering Period will appear in the row entitled “Total Bid for Ordering Period”.

• A six (6) month Extension of Services (EOS) will be calculated in Attachment 4 as outlined in Section M, Factor 2 – Price Proposals “Total Evaluated Price” paragraph b of the solicitation (Evaluation Factors).

• The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) that the Government will use in its evaluation of the offer will be calculated based on the sum of the totals of all Ordering Period’s, and the calculated EOS. The TEP will be calculated on the sheet labeled “Total Evaluated Price”.

• Only empty cells are unlocked for data entry by the offeror. No rows, columns, or cells may be added or deleted.

• Note: The calculation of the EOS is for evaluation purposes only and is not an indicator of the anticipated pricing or timing of any exercise of the clause at FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, or an indicator as to whether the Government will choose to exercise that clause during the performance of any contract awarded based on this solicitation. Refer to the language of the clause at FAR 52.217-8 for full details regarding this option.

• These instructions are included on the Bid Schedule spreadsheet for reference.

3. Provide signed copies of the Standard Form (SF) 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, for all amendments to the solicitation, if applicable.

4. Provide completed Provisions, Representations, Certifications, Acknowledgements, and Other Statements of Offerors.

NOTE: It is the offeror’s responsibility to submit with its offer all required representations, certifications, acknowledgements, and statements required by the solicitation even if they are not reiterated in this paragraph. The Government’s preference is that representations and certifications required by the solicitation are completed at https://sam.gov/. However, if offerors have not completed representations and certifications required by the solicitation at https://sam.gov/, they must submit a hardcopy of the applicable representations and certifications with their proposals in the same form as incorporated into the solicitation.

5. Submit any issues the offeror may have with the terms and conditions of the solicitation or exceptions thereto not previously brought to the attention of the CS per Section I paragraph 5 of these instructions. Proposals must conform to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. The offeror shall provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, price, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format, as well as shall include the content, specified in the table below. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

Table 1 - Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document Paragraph / Page Requirement/ Portion Rationale

SOO, SOW, SPEC

Model Contract, ITO, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Justify why the requirement will not be met

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1. Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

(LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer (CO).

1.1 Evaluation Process

The evaluation process to be used is as follows:

• Phase 1

Step 1. The Government will review the proposals to ensure compliance with the solicitation and Section L, Instruction, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents.

Step 2. The Government will determine if clarification is in the best interest of the Government. If the offeror’s proposal is considered significantly deficient and clarification is not in the best interest of the Government, the Government may reject the proposal from this competition (See para 1.2 below).

• Phase 2

Step 1. The Government will organize the proposals based on the lowest price and evaluate the technical approach of the lowest priced offeror first.

Step 2. If the lowest priced offeror is technically acceptable, that offer will be evaluated for Price in accordance with Factor 2 listed below. If the offerors Price is evaluated to be complete, balanced, and reasonable then that offeror represents the best value to the Government. The evaluation process will continue until two acceptable proposals are found.

Step 3. Award shall be made to the lowest price of the two proposals without further consideration to any other offerors.

1.2 Rejection of Significantly Deficient Offers

The Government may reject any proposal from this competition prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be significantly deficient. Significantly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP) or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the RFP and does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the RFP.

1.3 Contractor Responsibility

In accordance with FAR 9.103, the CO shall award contracts only to responsible vendors. No purchase or award shall be made unless the CO makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them. The CO shall require acceptable evidence of the prospective contractor’s current sound financial status, as well as the ability to obtain required resources if the need arises. In regard to resources, the contractor must be prepared to present acceptable evidence of subcontracts, commitments or explicit arrangements that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, services, materials, other resources or personnel. Consideration of a prime contractor’s compliance with limitations on subcontracting shall be taken into account for the time period covered by the contract ordering periods or quantities. Pursuant to FAR 9.104-4, the CO reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of any prospective subcontractor(s). In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the CO shall make a determination of non-responsibility.

1.4 Competitive Range Determination: During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition. A competitive range is not currently set. The Government reserves the right to set a competitive range. The competitive range determination will be based on evaluation criteria. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for purposes of efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to select one contractor for the On-

Call Paving & Grounds requirement. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

3. Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the

"correction potential" of any proposal deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offerors proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

4. Discussions: It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions, therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

5. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor I - Technical Acceptability: The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings described in the table below for each sub-factor. Any sub-factor evaluated as ‘Unacceptable’ will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, offerors are cautioned that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

1) Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: American Concrete Institution (ACI) Certifications

This sub-factor will evaluate whether an offeror and/or subcontractors have access to certified personnel with demonstrable knowledge about and the ability to place, consolidate, finish, edge, joint, cure, protect and maintain quality control pertaining to transportation projects. The required documentation to fulfill this subfactor are the following ACI certifications or evidence of pursuance:

i.) Field Concrete Testing

a. Concrete Field Testing Technician – Grade I ii.) Laboratory Concrete Testing

a. Concrete Strength Testing Technician iii.) Aggregate Testing

a. Aggregate Testing Technician – Level 1

Note: ACI Concrete Laboratory Testing Technician – Level 1 certification fulfills Laboratory Concrete Testing and Aggregate Testing certification requirements.

Subfactor 2: Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Certifications

This sub-factor will evaluate whether an offeror and/or proposed subcontractors, if applicable, have access to certified personnel with demonstrable knowledge about and the ability to place, finish, cure, and protect Asphalt Pavements, including supervision, quality control, and inspection of work. Acceptable certifying entities are Flexible Pavements of Ohio, or if from another state, another industry accreditation organization that provides quality control training based on state-specific Department of Transportation (DOT) policies for the required certifications. The required documentation to fulfill this subfactor are valid certificates, from an acceptable certifying entity, for the following certifications:

i. Asphalt Quality Control Technician (ODOT Level 2 Asphalt Technician or another state’s DOT equivalent level certification)

ii. Asphalt Field Quality Control Supervisor

Subfactor 3: Project Superintendent – Previous Work Experience

This sub-factor will evaluate whether the offeror has the ability to assign a Project Superintendent with knowledgeable working experience with pavement projects. The required documentation to fulfill this subfactor is, at a minimum, a resume of the proposed Project Superintendent with detailed work history evidencing at least 10 years of experience as a superintendent for pavement projects. Documentation shall include the name of the employer, a point of contact for that employer, and the title of the position held during the period of employment.

Subfactor 4: Offeror - Previous Work Experience This sub-factor will evaluate whether an offeror and proposed subcontractors, if applicable, have both the skills in management of pavement and completed other transportation systems projects with similar size and scope to this requirement with respect to Quality Control, Quality Assurance and timeliness. At a minimum, the required documentation to fulfill this subfactor are separate synopses of at least 3 separate projects completed within the past 5 years that have no record of warranty calls that pertain to any craftsmanship details, no record of customers rejecting any installation of material in a Quality Assurance inspection that should have been identified in a contractor’s Quality Control inspections, and were completed in the timeline of the proposed contract documents without any extensions at the request of the contractor; any extensions granted must have been at the request of the customer or due to the addition of scope. The synopses shall identify the customer and a point of contact for the customer for each project. In addition to the aforementioned minimum documentation, the synopses evidencing previous work experience shall, at a minimum, include the following project features:

i. Repair by mill and overlay of asphalt, with a minimum value of $100,000.

ii. Replacement of pavement by removal of surface and base course, installation of underdrains, and replacement of curb and gutters, with a minimum value of $100,000.

iii. Replacement of existing sidewalk with new sidewalk that did not previously comply with accessibility standards such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), with a minimum value of $10,000

iv. Installation where none previously existed or Replacement & upgrade of traffic lighting system, with a minimum value of $25,000.

Factor 2 – Price Proposals: Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) reasonableness, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Additionally, offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award.

1) Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with:

a) FAR 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition; and

b) Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents.

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, a proposed line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The burden of proof for demonstrating balance pricing rests with the offeror.

3) Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine if it is reasonable. 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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), Price analysis for commercial and non-commercial items. For additional information, reference FAR 31.201-3, Determining Reasonableness.

4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be calculated as follows:

a) The sum of the extended prices (unit quantity multiplied by unit price) for CLINs 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, & 5001 and

b) To account for the maximum six (6) month extension possible under the clause at FAR 52.217-

8, Option to Extend Services, the Government will use the sum of the proposed prices of the final period (CLINs 5001), prorate it to a six (6) month value, and add that amount to the sum of all CLINs. Please note that this calculation is used for evaluation purposes only. After award, the Government reserves the right to exercise the Option to Extend Services at any time allowed by 52.217-8, and at the price allowed by 52.217-8.

The resulting amount will be the TEP. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise any option(s).

The table below illustrates the calculation of a proposal’s TEP using the methodology described above.

This is for illustrative purposes only. Prices reflected in the table are notional and in no way reflect the actual value of the requirement or an actual evaluation of proposed prices submitted in response to this, or any other, solicitation for the same or similar requirements.

Example Only

Performance Period

(POP)

POP

Length

CLIN

s

Extended Proposed Price

Ordering Period 1 12 Months 1001 $ 1,000,000.00 Ordering Period 2 12 Months 2001 $ 1,000,020.00 Ordering Period 3 12 Months 3001 $ 1,000,040.00 Ordering Period 4 12 Months 4001 $ 1,000,060.00 Ordering Period 5 12 Months 5001 $ 1,000,080.00

Total Proposed Price for Ordering Period 1-5 $5,000,200.00 Evaluated Value - Six (6) Month Option to Extend Service IAW

FAR 52.217-8

$ 500,040.00

Total Evaluated Price

(TEP)

$5,500,240.00