Attachment_5_Section_M_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

SSP Attachment 5 – Section M Provision

SECTION M PROVISION – Evaluation Factors for Award

RFP FA8534-22-R-0002

M-900. Proposal Requirements

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered approximately equal to price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the Source Selection Team’s (SST’s) evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the

RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluations, the “correction potential” of the proposal.

The judgement of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If one (1) or more aspects of an offeror’s proposal do not meet the Government’s requirements and the proposal is not considered to be correctable without substantial rewrite, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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.

2. Factors and Subfactors: The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following Factors and

Subfactors:

Factor I: Technical o Subfactor 1) System Performance – Energy Efficiency o Subfactor 2) Operation Environment – Temperature Range o Subfactor 3) Operation Environment – Wind Load o Subfactor 4) Operation Environment – Snow Load o Subfactor 5) Transportability – Packaging Volume

Factor II: Past Performance

Factor III: Price

a. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: Within Factor I, Technical, the five (5) subfactors are of equal importance. Factor I, Technical will be evaluated strictly on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as discussed below and therefore will not be considered in the tradeoff decision. Factor II, Past

Performance, is approximately equal to Factor III, Price.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated solicitation requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

C. Volume II, Technical Factors

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of

PD19WRWNSEV04 dated 01 May 2020 (and any revisions), and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor One: System Performance—Energy Efficiency. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation

(such as but not limited to charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations) that adequately demonstrates the offeror’s technical approach will meet PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph 3.6.4 requirements as follows:

i) When the offeror’s technical proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to meeting the following cooling and heating requirements: the shelter system will comply with the following cooling and heating parameters when connected to a single 5-Ton British Thermal Unit/hour (BTU)/hr Environmental

Control Unit (ECU): two EESSSs (including solar shade flys and liners) shall provide an inside temperature at least 45°F cooler than outside ambient temperature throughout the entire operating temperature while in cooling mode. Additionally, when connected to a single 130K BTU/hr fuel fired heater, two EESSS’s, including solar shade flys and liners shall provide an inside temperature no less than 80°F warmer than outside ambient temperature throughout the system’s operational temperature range described in PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph 3.6.4

ii) Energy efficiency test shall be conducted according to guidance in paragraph

4.6.6.3 and all related tables and diagrams. Any currently available testing data demonstrating the ability to meet prescribed parameters described in

PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph 3.6.4 was provided.

Subfactor Two: Operation Environment – Temperature Range. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation (such as but not limited to charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations) that adequately demonstrates the offeror’s technical approach will meet

PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph 3.5.6 requirements as follows:

i) When the offeror’s technical proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to meeting the following temperature requirements: the shelter system shall be operational and serviceable (to include under canopy, erect and strike) from -25 °F to +125 °F as described in PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph 3.5.6.

ii) Any currently available testing data demonstrating the ability to meet prescribed parameters described in PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph 3.5.6 was provided. This may include certifications from the fabric manufacturers stating that shelter exterior fabrics and shade fly fabrics have been tested to, and meet the Cold Crack requirements in accordance with ASTM D2136 described in PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraphs 4.6.4.8 and 4.6.4.9.

Subfactor Three: Operation Environment – Wind Load. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation (such as but not limited to charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations) that demonstrates the offeror’s technical approach will meet PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph 3.5.1 requirements as follows:

i) When the offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates the offeror’s approach to meeting the following wind load requirements: the shelter system shall withstand a steady wind speed of at least 80 miles per hour (mph) for a 30 minute duration with three gusts of 90 mph for a duration of two minutes per gust as described in paragraph 3.5.1 of PD19WRWNSEV04.

ii) Any currently available testing or computer modeling simulation data that demonstrates ability to meet prescribed parameters described in

PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph 3.5.1. The requirements of 3.5.1 shall be verified using the testing method described in paragraph 4.6.4.3.

Subfactor Four: Operation Environment – Snow Load. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation (such as but not limited to charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations) that adequately demonstrates the offeror’s technical approach will meet

PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph 3.5.3 requirements as follows:

meeting the following snow load requirements: the EESSS, deployed without the solar fly (unless the solar fly is an integral part of the shelter system), shall withstand a snow load of 10 pounds per 1.0 square foot for a period of 12 hours without damage when fully erected demonstrating the ability to meet prescribed parameters in the described configuration per PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph 3.5.3.

ii) Any currently available testing or computer modeling simulation data that demonstrates ability to meet prescribed parameters described in

PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph 3.5.3. The requirements of 3.5.3 shall be verified using the test method described in 4.5 of TOP 10-2-175 (Soft Wall Shelters) described in paragraph 4.6.4.5.

Subfactor Five: Transportability – Packaging. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation

(such as but not limited to charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations). To demonstrate that the offeror’s technical approach will meet the transportability mandate in paragraph 3.9.1 of PD19WRWNSEV04 as follows:

meeting the following packaging requirements: the EESSS shall be designed to be transported and stored in an Internal Airlift/Helicopter Slingable-Container Unit

(ISU)-90 or International Organization Standardization (ISO) Tricon/Bicon type containers. Three full shelter systems (including support equipment) in packed configuration shall fit in one ISU-90 type container described in

PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph 3.9.1.

ii) The offeror’s approach is validated by providing a load plan that demonstrates ability to meet prescribed parameters described in PD19WRWNSEV04 paragraph

3.9.1. The requirements of 3.9 shall be verified using paragraph 4.6.9.1.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. 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 technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factors

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A joint venture is defined as a contractual agreement joining together two (2) or more parties to undertake a particular business transaction or project and is intended to exist for a limited time period.

The individual entities may retain their individuality and operate under a joint venture agreement or the joint venture creates a separate corporation, limited liability company, or membership.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past six (6) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) 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 Past Performance volume.

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 such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member 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.

c) Key Personnel: In considering past performance, the Government will not consider “Key

Personnel” of the offeror/joint venture member.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror shall have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself.

The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, total quantity produced, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

• The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar

Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of

Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total Quantity produced for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced, and Overall Type and

Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4

Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total dollar value, length of effort, quantity produced, and type and complexity of data deliverables of the Order or Series of

Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M

Paragraph 4.1 below.

Recency Assessment: An assessment of the Past Performance Information (PPI) will be made to determine if the effort is recent. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past six (6) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. PPI that does not met this condition will not be evaluated.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted efforts. The Government will consider the following relevancy definitions as well as the logistical and programmatic considerations included in the note proceeding the definitions in the overall relevancy assessment for each effort. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s

Volume III of its proposal:

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the below definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified for each effort but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to dollar value, period of performance, quantity produced, and type and complexity of data deliverables. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects.

If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Energy Efficient Small Shelter System. They are as follows:

Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

1. Dollar Value: The USG estimated dollar value is not releasable, but offerors’ proposed prices in

RFP Attachment F will be compared against the USG estimate for this effort

2. Period of Performance: 10 years

3. Quantity: Total BEQ 2,551; Monthly BEQ 30 units

4. Data Deliverables: Inspection Reports, Delivery Reports, Status Reports, etc.

Expeditionary Design Capability Relevancy Definitions.

Expeditionary Shelter is defined as:

- Modular Soft wall vinyl construction using USIFI 44103 fabric

- Designed for transportability (i.e. rigid members are less than 90“ length in storage configuration)

- Designed for quick strike/erect time (Time under Canopy less than 45 minutes), multiple cycles (min. 10 cycles)

- Designed to withstand extreme environmental conditions o Wind loads (excess of 80 mph) o Snow loads (excess of 10 psf) o Temperatures (-25⁰F to +120⁰F)

4.1 Production/Design Capability Relevancy Definitions.

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Very Relevant efforts must have included all of the following:

Manufactured minimum 30 ea. / month shelters comprised of at least 200 yd² vinyl ea. or Designed 3 or more Expeditionary type shelters with 20 sq. ft. or more floor width

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts must have included the following:

Manufactured minimum 15 ea. / month shelters comprised of at least 200 yd² vinyl ea. or Designed minimum one Expeditionary type shelter with 18 sq. ft. or more floor width

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat Relevant efforts must have included all of the following:

Manufactured minimum 5 ea. / month shelters comprised of at least 200 yd² vinyl ea. or Designed any size Expeditionary type shelter

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

5. Quality of Performance: As described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and FAR

15.304(c)(2), the past performance evaluation shall evaluate quality of performance. The Government will assess the past performance quality of recent efforts that demonstrate some level of relevancy, as discussed above. The Government reserves the right to utilize any and all available means to obtain quality of performance information including, but not limited to, CPARS, DCMA records, questionnaire responses, interviews, etc. In terms of available CPARS, the Government reserves the right to conduct follow up interviews with CPARS reviewing officials as well as any current effort points of contact regarding trends in the performance. Further, the Government will make an independent determination on quality of performance; the Government will not be bound by any ratings identified in questionnaires, interviews or CPARS, but will take into account the ratings provided as well as the narratives and gathered information to make an independent determination. The Government’s quality assessment will not result in a separate quality rating; instead, the quality assessment will result in an overarching narrative assessment discussing identified ratings (CPARS, questionnaires, etc), narratives, and the

Government team’s independent assessment.

5.1. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns when this clause was contained in the submitted efforts. That is, on the four (4) respective efforts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors.) If none of the efforts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members included this clause, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these efforts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

6. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: The Government will evaluate the submitted efforts, as well as any efforts independently identified by the Government, for three aspects: recency, relevancy and quality of performance. These aspects will be evaluated in a sequential manner, as follows:

Each effort will be evaluated for recency, as defined above. For those efforts determined recent, they will be evaluated for relevancy. Should an effort be determined not recent, no further evaluation of that effort will take place.

For those efforts determined to have some level of relevancy (i.e., at least a Somewhat Relevant assigned), they will be evaluated for quality of performance. Should an effort be determined not relevant, no further evaluation of that effort will take place.

Quality of performance will be evaluated via questionnaire responses from customer points of contact, telephone interviews conducted with customer points of contact, review of available CPARS, etc., as discussed above. Should the Government be unable to obtain quality of performance information for any effort (i.e., no questionnaires returned, customer points of contact unresponsive, no CPARS available, etc.), that effort will not be considered as a part of the confidence assessment rating.

Adjectival Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no 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 assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see

FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.”. A record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

7. Price Factor.

Volume IV, Price Proposal Factor

1. Price Factor. The offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs a. and b. below. Offerors are reminded that in order to maintain reasonable/balanced pricing, the Government will not accept “Not Separately Priced” (NSP), No Charge

(NC), $0, etc. on any line items other than those already designated as “NSP” in the Excel Price Model.

Offerors are advised to review all data items and ensure that they are proposing to the specific data requirements and level of effort involved. For data items where the quantity of one lot is specified, the quantity of one shall be used. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph c.

a. Reasonableness: 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 or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

b. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items (including the Basic and Option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN price may be due to (a) illogical progression of rates, factors or unit prices between program years, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the

“front-loading” of CLINs; any of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost for that

CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government will consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items.

Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in RFP

Attachment F. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. TEP: The sum of the evaluated prices for each Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLIN represent the TEP. The evaluated CLIN prices will be calculated as follows:

i. For CLINs 0001, 0003AA, 0003AB, 0003AC, 0003AD, 0004, 0005, 0008AA, 0008AB, 0009, 1001, 1005, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001, 6001,7001, 8001, 9001:

Offerors are to enter the proposed unit price for the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) noted for each CLIN in RFP Attachment F. The evaluated price will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price times the respective quantity. If quantity/price breaks are proposed, the government will multiply the proposed range unit price(s) by the quantity included in each range to obtain an evaluated price for that CLIN.

ii. For CLINs 0003AA, 0003AB, 0003AC, 0003AD, 0004, 0005, 0008AA, 0008AB, 0009, 1005: The evaluated CLIN price will be calculated using the proposed lot price.

iii. CLINs 0002AA, 0002AB, 0002AC, 0002AD, 0002AE, 0003AE, 0003AF, 0006AA, 0006AB, 0006AC, 0006AD, 0007, 1002, 1003, 1004, 2002, 2003, 2004, 3002, 3003, 3004, 4002, 4003, 4004, 5002, 5003, 5004, 6002, 6003, 6004, 7002, 7003, 7004, 8002, 8003, 8004, 9002, 9003, and 9004 are Not Separately Priced

(NSP) and therefore will not be part of the TEP calculation.

iv. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

The TEP and calculation method outlined above will be used for evaluation purposes only.

Offerors are advised that evaluation of option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such option periods. The pricing for all orders placed under the awarded contract will be calculated by multiplying the quantity ordered by the unit price awarded for the applicable quantity range.

Pictured below is an example of the Price Proposal Volume

NOTE: The example is provided for demonstration purposes only and is not inclusive of all contract periods nor all CLINs. The Government estimated dollars, hours, rates, quantities, and/or prices contained within are arbitrary numbers. The example is in no way reflective of the actual/total requirements as defined in the RFP. It is provided only as a means of identifying how the various types of calculations will be performed for TEP purposes.

In the event of a quantity/price break, an example of the CLIN evaluated price is as follows:

Quantity Range Example

CLIN BEQ FRO

M

TO Qty

Per

Ran ge

Unit

Price

Total Price

0001 1 EA $100 $100

0002 1 LO $100 $100

0003 1 LO $100 $100

0012 6,729EA

1 2,50

2,5

$100 $250,000

2,501 5,00

2,5

$90 $225,000

5,001 6,72

1,7

$85 $146,965

Total Evaluated Price $622,265