Attachment 7 - Section M Evaluation Criteria - 16 Feb 22.pdf

FA488722R0002 – Attachment 7 - Section M

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD.

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposals for the acquistition. The Government will compare each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against predetermined measures of merit related to the Government's requirement defined herein.

M.1.0 Basis for Contract Award.

This is a competitive, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) with Past Performance

Acceptability acquisition for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) companies that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air

Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at, https://acquisition.gov/ . The Government evaluation team will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. In order to be considered for award, the Offeror must be determined responsible (as described in FAR 9.104), meet all solicitation requirements (including terms and conditions), be technically acceptable, be assessed a past performance rating of acceptable, and have the lowest total evaluated price that is balanced and fair and reasonable.

M.2.0. Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award one (1) Firm-Fixed Price contract as a result of this solicitation.

M.3.0. Evaluation Process

M.3.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

M.3.1.1. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Bonding Capacity

Subfactor 2: Project Approach

Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan and Health and

Safety Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance (Recent & Relevant)

Factor 3: Price (Reasonable, & Balanced) https://acquisition.gov/

M.3.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors.

The Technical Factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. All Subfactors within Technical are of equal importance and will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Past Performance Factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The

Technical Factor and Past Performance Factors are of equal importance. Past Performance when combined with Technical Factor(s), is less important than Price.

M.3.2. Evaluation Steps.

The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. Proposals will be evaluated using the following evaluation process steps:

Step 1 – Proposal Adequacy: The Government will review proposals for completeness (adhering to all information/instructions). If an Offeror fails to comply with instructions in Section L -

Instructions, Condition, and Notices to Offeror, the Offeror’s proposal may be deemed incomplete and will receive no further consideration and be eliminated from the competition. The Government will only evaluate proposals deemed complete.

Step 2 – Proposal Ranking: All Offeror’s with complete proposals will be ranked by price according to the proposals submitted with the lowest total evaluated price ranked first. Evaluations will commence with the offeror with the lowest total evaluated price and proceed in order in accordance with the subsequent steps.

Step 3 – Evaluate Factor 1, Technical, for Technical Acceptability: The Government will evaluate lowest total evaluated price for technical acceptability. A rating of “Acceptable” or

“Unacceptable” will be assigned for each subfactor. All subfactors must be deemed “Acceptable” for Factor 1 to be deemed “Acceptable”. To be eligible for award, an Offeror must receive an

“Acceptable” rating for Factor 1. If the proposal is determined to be “Acceptable”, it will proceed to be evaluated for Factor 2, Past Performance. In the absence of discussions, if a proposal is deemed technically unacceptable for Factor 1, it will be eliminated and past performance will not be evaluated. Thus the proposal will be eliminated from competition.

Step 4 – Evaluate Factor 2, Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the technically

“Acceptable” Offeror’s past performance submission and will assign a Past Performance rating of

“Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. If the proposal is determined to be “Acceptable”, it will proceed to be evaluated for Factor 3, Price. No further consideration will be given for proposals that receive a rating of “Unacceptable”.

Step 5 – Evaluate Factor 3, Price: The Proposal that is found technically “Acceptable” and received an “Acceptable” Past Performance Rating will then be reviewed for balance and fair and reasonable pricing IAW 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), based on the Total Evaluated Price. The Government reserves the right to continue to review additional proposals for technical “Acceptability” and Past

Performance “Acceptability” for price comparison only, to assist in the determination of fair and reasonable pricing.

Step 6 – Contracting Officer’s Decision: Once the best value Offeror is determined, the Offeror will be evaluated for responsibility in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1 and, if found responsible, the offeror will be the apparent successful offeror.

M.3.3. Discussions.

a. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions and make an award based on initial proposals; as such, Offerors are advised to submit sufficient information and in the format specified. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer.

b. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for revisions.

c. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, a competitive range will be determined and the Offeror’s responses to Evaluation

Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the acquisition decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their offer (for example: the relevance of past/present performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. If, upon submission of the FPR, an Offeror materially changes their proposal such that the price is no longer fair and reasonable or sufficient to keep them among the most highly rated Offerors or other factor inputs change their ranking among other Offerors, the Offeror may be removed from consideration for award.

M.3.4. Final Proposal Revisions.

If discussions are conducted, FPRs will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP. However, the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions, in which case, FPRs will not be required.

Offerors are advised that unsupported FPRs may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy.

M.3.5. Correction Potential of Proposal.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or proposal inadequacy. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competition.

M.4.0. EVALUATION FACTORS.

M.4.1. Factor 1 – Technical

a. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s technical proposal, based on the subfactors listed below, to determine if the Offeror’s technical proposal demonstrates a sound approach and a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the acquisition requirements and solicitation. All

Subfactors within the Technical Factor are of equal importance and will be evaluated on an

“Acceptable/Unacceptable” Basis, as defined in Table 4.1. below.

b. Measure of Merit: The minimum standard of acceptability is met when the Offeror's proposal provides a technical approach that meets the Government's minimum capability requirements for all

Technical Subfactors. All subfactors must receive an Acceptable rating for Factor 1, Technical to be deemed Acceptable. An offer with an Unacceptable rating in one or more subfactors will be given an overall rating of Unacceptable for Factor 1 - Technical and will not be eligible for award.

At a minimum, the Offeror shall provide sufficient information to meet the measure of merit.

TABLE 4.1. – Measure of Merit - Technical Ratings – FACTOR 1 Technical

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

c. Evaluators shall assign a rating of ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE based on the minimum requirements stated below for each Subfactor.

M.4.1.1. Technical Subfactor 1: Bonding. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s bonding capacity and assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described in the Measure of Merit

Table 4.1.1 below. Provide proof of bonding capacity in the form of a surety letter, which guarantees the Offeror is eligible to be bonded for a minimum of $1,000,000 for a single project and $3,000,000 aggregate. The document must include the surety company’s name, address, telephone number, and points of contact. The surety must be listed in the Department of Treasury

Circular 570, “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal

Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies”. The project and aggregate bonding amounts shall not exceed the surety’s underwriting limit certified by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

TABLE 4.1.1. – Measure of Merit - Technical Ratings – SUBFACTOR 1 – BONDING

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets all of the following requirements of the solicitation:

1. Minimum bonding capacity of $1M project.

2. Minimum bonding capacity of $3M aggregate.

3. Bonding company certified on Department of Treasury Circular 570.

4. Bonding amounts do not exceed surety’s underwriting limit.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet one or more of the bonding requirements.

M.4.1.2. Technical Subfactor 2: Project Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to appropriately plan for the execution of the project and assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described in the Measure of Merit Table 4.1.2. below. To be determined acceptable, a proposal must contain all the elements required by the project and meet the following minimum standards:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach contained within their proposal. The

Offeror shall demonstrate a complete and thorough understanding of the project SOW by utilizing accurate project phasing, describing an effective and sound process for interfacing with the government team throughout the project life cycle and demonstrating an adequate set of processes and procedures detailing how the Offeror will execute all work diligently without any unnecessary or unauthorized delays, breaks or deviations from the Construction Work Schedule

(AF Form 3064) and/or subsequent modifications. In addition, necessary testing, inspections, outages and required permits shall be fully described to meet SOW procedures. Offeror shall also describe how to handle changes in scope related to unforeseen conditions, government requested changes and any other potential change conditions. For all work areas including interior and exterior, describe the means of access for equipment, labor, and materials. Describe the unique challenges of this project as you understand them and how the Offeror will overcome the risks associated with these challenges, including the Offeror’s approach to construction phasing (if any), sequencing and working in an occupied facility. Identify any work dependencies and how the Offeror will address those dependencies. Include a description of procedures, processes and methods for tracking the progress of the project, adhering to the approved Contract Progress

Schedule (AF form 3064 and Gantt chart), and interfacing with the Government and contractor team from beginning to end. [Note: This paragraph corresponds with RFP Section L paragraph

L.3.2.2.a]

b. Construction Work Schedule (CWS) (AF Form 3064): The CWS will be evaluated on the

Offeror’s ability to develop a GANTT chart that lays out an appropriate critical path and set of milestones that accurately captures the preparatory and major line items required to perform the project, and effectively reflects an accurate overall period of performance required to complete the task order. As a minimum, the CWS milestones shall accurately reflect project phasing, construction/phase/multiple facility start date(s), utility outages, major equipment deliveries and installations, tests, critical inspection points (i.e., wall inspections prior to drywall installation, above-ceiling inspections, etc.) proposed Beneficial Occupancy and Final Inspection date(s) and equipment training. In addition to the Gantt chart, the Offeror shall submit an AF Form 3064 that clearly shows progress throughout the project broken out between CSI Master Format divisions and monthly progress periods for billing purposes. [Note: This paragraph corresponds with RFP

Section L paragraphs L.3.2.2.b]

c. The Offeror will be evaluated on the completeness of the Schedule of Material Submittals (AF

Form 66) reflecting an accurate accounting of all proposed materials and required contract documents to execute the project. AF Form 66 attachment is an example that the Offeror can use to submit their schedule of materials. Offeror’s will be required to add, edit, or adjust based on the specifics of the project requirements. Submittal register shall reflect submission dates needed to meet project timelines shown in the schedules provided. [Note: This paragraph corresponds with

RFP Section L paragraphs L.3.2.2.c]

TABLE 4.1.2. – Measure of Merit - Technical Ratings – SUBFACTOR 2 – Project Approach

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets all of the following requirements of the solicitation:

1. Project Approach – Offeror’s approach contains accurate project phasing, effective and a sound process for interfacing with the government team throughout the project life cycle, and adequate set of processes and procedures detailing how the Offeror will execute all work diligently without any unnecessary or unauthorized delays, breaks or deviations from the

Construction Work Schedule (AF Form 3064) and Gantt chart and/or subsequent modifications.

2. Construction Work Schedule and (AF Form 3064) and Gantt chart – Offeror’s schedule lays out an appropriate critical path and set of milestones that accurately captures the preparatory and major line items required to perform the project, and effectively reflects an accurate overall period of performance required to complete the task order as stated in paragraph b. above.

3. Schedule of Material Submittals (AF Form 66) – Offeror’s schedule of material submittals reflects an accurate accounting of all proposed materials and required contract documents to execute the seed project.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet one or more of the Project requirements.

M.4.1.3. Technical Subfactor 3, Quality Control and Health and Safety Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to appropriately develop the necessary Quality Control and

Health and Safety Plans to execute the contract and assign an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described in the Measure of Merit Table 4.1.3. below. To be determined acceptable, a proposal must contain all the elements required by the subfactor and meet the following minimum standards.

Offeror’s submission should include two (2) separate elements: Quality Control Plan, and Health and Safety Plan.

a. Quality Control Plan:

Offerors shall submit a formal quality control plan, which describes how they will inspect and measure progress, their approach to submittals, testing, control procedures, construction deficiencies, and reporting procedures. Offerors should also detail how they detect and resolve problems, interface and partner with government project managers, contracting officials, inspectors, users and subcontractors. The plan should meet all requirements of Luke Master Specification, section 014500 (Attachment 15 - 014500

Contractor Quality Control). [Note: This paragraph corresponds with RFP Section L paragraph L.3.2.3.a].

b. Health and Safety Plan:

Offerors shall submit a formal Health and Safety Plan which describes how they will maintain a safe workplace and ensure all contractors and subcontractors adhere to the

OSHA, federal, state, and base safety requirements. The plan should meet all requirements of Luke Master Specification, section 010700 (Attachment 16 - 010700 Safety

Requirements). [Note: This paragraph corresponds with RFP Section L paragraph L.3.2.3.b].

TABLE 4.1.3. – Measure of Merit - Technical Ratings – SUBFACTOR 3 – Quality Control and Health and

Safety Plan

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets all of the following requirements of the solicitation.

1. Quality Control Plan:

The formal Quality Control Plan meets the requirements of Luke Master Specifications, Section 014500.

2. Health and Safety Plan:

The formal Health and Safety Plan meets the requirements of Luke Master Specifications section 010700.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet one or more of the Project requirements.

M.4.2. Factor 2 – Present/Past Performance.

a. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

System (CPARS) or other databases; interviews with Project Managers, Contracting Officers and

Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

b. The Government will evaluate past performance submissions for recency and relevancy. Each past performance submission will be determined as recent or not recent. Then, each recent past performance submission will receive a relevancy rating. As a result of recency, relevancy, of the individual contracts evaluated, an overall Past Performance Evaluation Rating will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. Only Offerors with a Past Performance rating of “Acceptable” will be considered eligible for award. Any proposals receiving a past performance evaluation rating of

“Unacceptable” for Factor 2 will not be eligible for award.

c. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors may be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror or 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.

d. The Offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly identifies and supports recency and relevancy based on the following definitions:

M.4.2.1. Recency.

a. An evaluation of the present/past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Recency is defined as active contract performance during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. Ongoing projects may be used as long as they are at least 80% complete as of the date of issuance of this solicitation (A progress report signed by a Government Contracting Officer or Non-

Federal Government equivalent must be provided to prove actual completion percentage). If a contract reference is determined recent (had some or all active performance in the three (3) years preceding the solicitation issuance date), and had active performance prior to the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation, the Government may evaluate the Offeror’s performance record during the entire contract period. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

b. A recency determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s). In determining recency for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror/Teaming Partner/Joint Venture member whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Present/Past Performance Information (PPPI) (Attachment 11 - Present Past

Performance Information (PPPI)) forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of recency of past performance. The Government will use the below table of recency ratings when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table M.4.2.1. PAST PERFORMANCE RECENCY RATING METHOD

Rating Definition

RECENT

Present/Past Performance effort is ongoing with 80% or more completion or has been completed during the past three years.

NOT RECENT

Present/Past Performance effort is not ongoing with 80% or more completion or has not been completed during the past three years.

M.4.2.2. Relevancy.

a. The Government will conduct an in depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely related the products provided/services performed under those contracts are to the Technical requirements and Price, including their relative order of importance, to this acquisition. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for Technical similarity and relative price magnitude (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

b. Specifically, relevant is defined as contracts of similar size, scope, and magnitude, involving the type of construction and work elements described in the solicitation and attached SOW. Relevant past performance project work elements include projects involving renovation, modernization, alteration and repair, additions and upgrades, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical, mechanical, and other major trades. Relevant Present/Past project(s) cost should be in the range of $200,000 - $2,000,000.

c. Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on completed or current contracts

(including Federal, State, local government and commercial) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the SOW. Offerors are required to explain what aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to complexity and magnitude as related to the requirements of this solicitation and in accordance with Section

M. Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the overall rating.

d. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture and teaming partner(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture, or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Present/Past Performance Information (PPPI) (Attachment 11 - Present Past

Performance Information (PPPI)) forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the below table of relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table M.4.2.2. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

Rating Definition

RELEVANT

Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.4.2.4. Assigning Performance Evaluation Ratings.

Performance Evaluation is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the

Technical Subfactors and Price Factor. IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2), the government will consider currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance. This evaluation of the recent contracts will result in

Offerors receiving a Performance Evaluation Rating, as defined in Table 4.2.4. below.

TABLE 4.2.4. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the

Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

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

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

“Acceptable.”

M.4.3. Factor 3 – Price

M.4.3.1. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

a. Complete the Standard Form 1442 and all pages originally included in the RFP. Offerors must complete all Scheduled B pricing information and complete all representations and Certifications in

Section K or in SAM.gov. Offerors should complete Section B with the price in the unit price and total price columns. Complete blocks 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20a, 20b, and 20c of the SF 1442, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. An authorized official of the firm submitting the offer must sign and date the SF 1442 in block 30a, 30b, and 30c. In doing so, the Offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP, Sections A through K.

M.4.3.2. TEP Evaluation.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal (TEP) for balance, and fair and reasonableness. Only proposals determined to be balanced and fair and reasonable will be eligible for award.

M.4.3.2.1. Unbalanced Pricing.

The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether proposed prices are unbalanced pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(g). Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.4.3.2.2. Reasonableness.

IAW FAR 31.201-3 and 15.404-1, the Offeror’s TEP price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable. Pursuant to FAR 15.404-1, the Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation (adequate price competition). Adequate price competition is defined in FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(i)-(ii).

b. Comparison of the proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the

Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items.

c. The prior price must be a valid basis for comparison. If there has been a significant time lapse between the last acquisition and the present one, if the terms and conditions of the acquisition are significantly different, or if the reasonableness of the prior price is uncertain, then the prior price may not be a valid basis for comparison.

d. The prior price must be adjusted to account for materially differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors. For similar items, the contracting officer must also adjust the prior price to account for material differences between the similar item and the item being procured.

e. Expert technical advice should be obtained when analyzing similar items, or commercial items that are “of a type” or requiring minor modifications, to ascertain the magnitude of changes required and to assist in pricing the required changes

(1) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

(2) Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.

(3) Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

(4) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

f. The techniques described in paragraph M.4.3.2.3.a and M.4.3.2.3.b are the preferred techniques. However, if the contracting officer determines that information on competitive proposed prices or previous contract prices is not available or is insufficient to determine that the price is fair and reasonable, the contracting officer may use any of the remaining techniques as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.