Attachment_8_C-12_Section M -Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

ATTACHMENT 8 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Source Selection (SS)

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

Tradeoffs will only be made between Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable in Factor 1. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. 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 the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.1.1 The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2 This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 20 August 2022, and Department of the Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at www.acquisition.gov.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any technical proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency. The correction potential shall be based on the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet Government requirements.

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002

FA8134-25-R-B002

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

1.4 Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c).

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made to eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three factors. 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 efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.5 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative Offerors submit their best terms initially. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals, e.g., the relevance of an Offeror’s Past Performance Information (PPI) and adverse PPI to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

If during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if offerors will be required to include EN responses in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions how offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.5.1 Facility Clearance Information: The offeror, and subcontractors as required, must possess or acquire, prior to award, a final facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD Form 254) attached to this solicitation. The offeror shall also obtain a Communications Security (COMSEC) account prior to the end of the Transition/Phase-In period. Therefore, all facility clearances must be approved and Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) as defined in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) issues must be mitigated prior to award.

All final facility clearances must be approved prior to the Source Selection Authority Decision Brief (SSDAB). The National Industrial Security System (NISS) will be used to verify final facility clearances to one business day prior to SSADB. Offerors who do not have a final facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD254) attached to this solicitation in the NISS database one business day prior to the SSADB will be considered non-responsible and will not be eligible for award. Any determination that an offeror is non-responsible will be in accordance with FAR Part 9. The Source Selection Authority Decision Brief may occur without discussion if there is a fully acceptable and awardable initial proposal among the offers tendered, or may occur following discussions and receipt of the final proposal revisions. The Government is not

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002

obligated to hold discussion nor delay the Decision Brief awaiting offer completion of the facilities clearance requirement.

1.5.2 Proscribed Classified COMSEC Information Notice to Offerors and any and all subcontractors: Proscribed classified COMSEC information is involved in this effort.

Therefore, US companies operating under FOCI as defined in the NISPOM with a Special Security Agreement (SSA) as the mitigation instrument are on notice that a National Interest Determination (NID) will be required. The NID decision will be made by the Government and documented prior to award of the contract. If the NID is denied, the contractor will be determined non- responsible and will not be eligible for award.

Any determination an offeror is non- responsible will be in accordance with FAR Part 9.

1.5.3 Subcontracting Classified COMSEC Work: If the offeror plans to subcontract COMSEC work to a subcontractor, NISPOM 9-407 will apply. NISPOM 9-407, Subcontracting COMSEC Work, states, "Subcontracting requiring the disclosure of classified COMSEC information shall be awarded only upon the written approval of the Government Contracting Activity (GCA)". Due to the long authorization process and in order to be in compliance with the NISPOM at contract award, the offeror's request for authorization to subcontract classified COMSEC work shall be included in the Contract Volume of the offeror’s proposal. This authorization shall be a letter to the PCO with the subcontractor's name, full address, CAGE code, facility clearance level, ownership information, and shall address any FOCI issues.

1.6 Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned. The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1 Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Maintenance Subfactor 3: Supply Support Subfactor 4: Transition Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) is significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price).

2.1.3 Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below.

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable in Table 2.2.1 below.

Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2 Factor 1 – Technical

The Technical evaluation will be based on each’s offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002

technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, un-awardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall technical rating.

The rating definitions for Subfactors 1, 2, 3, and 4 are as follows:

Table 2.2.1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1 Subfactor 1: Program Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Program Management approach.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), IAW Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance:

a. The proposal must ensure the approach for Program Management includes management structure. The proposal must describe the qualifications and experience of the proposed key personnel. The proposal must include resumes that meet the requirements of paragraph 1.9.2 of the PWS, letters of intent, and proposed location for each site lead. The proposed approach also includes a plan to staff all sites, with certified, trained personnel to support 24/7 operations and remote, austere, single aircraft sites. The plan addresses vacations, retirements, illnesses, etc. in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.3, 1.9 and all subparagraphs of 1.9, and 1.15.

b. The proposal must ensure the approach for Quality Assurance includes all sites. The approach must include the process by which quality assurance will be conducted, frequency of site inspections, and proposed personnel to conduct site inspections in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.2.4, 1.14, and 1.14.2.

c. The proposal must ensure an approach for technical and engineering services. The approach must include a process for obtaining required data FAA Form 337 and for obtaining FAA approvals for modifications accomplishment and for obtaining data in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.3.1.2, and 1.25.4.

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002

d. Ensure the proposal includes signed letters of intent with the OEM (addressed to the Prime Contractor), Engine Maintenance agreements, and subcontractors ensuring PWS requirements were met per the PWS Section I paragraph 1, 1.2.4.

e. All offerors (both small businesses and other than small businesses) will be evaluated based on the narrative description on the extent of the proposed participation/commitment to use of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition and a fully completed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). The Offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation Commitment Document must be successfully completed IAW Section L, Attachment 3.0. In addition, the Offeror’s proposed small business minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) must be 10%. The MQR percentage must be equal to or greater than 10% to meet the MQR requirement. Rounding is not permissible.

For example: A proposed MQR of 9.97% would result in a deficiency. A proposed MQR of 10.01% would be acceptable.

2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Maintenance

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Maintenance approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), IAW Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a. Must ensure an approach to manage aircraft site operations and aircraft maintenance. The proposed approach must include unique considerations affecting maintenance of single aircraft sites for both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance to maintain Mission Capable (MC) rate in accordance with 1.3, 1.5, 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.21, 1.21.1, 1.25.3, 1.25.4.5,

1.25.4.6. Ensure the proposed approach to aircraft maintenance upholds commercial FAA certification standards and includes management of engine and propeller maintenance, and heavy maintenance, defensive systems maintenance in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.7, 1.8.

b. Must ensure an approach to provide for a maintenance information system which adheres to the requirements of the PWS. The maintenance information system provides near real time status reporting and gives Government complete visibility and insight into the C-12 critical program metrics. The proposed approach addresses maintenance extensions and time between overhauls in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.15.4 and 1.15.5.

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002

2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Supply Support

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Supply Support approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), IAW Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a. The proposed approach must ensure all parts and spares provided are properly configured and have FAA Airworthiness Certification. Ensure approach includes details to manage all material, parts, tools, and support equipment and clearly describes the process used to maintain Contractor Owned and Maintained Parts (COMP) at each site and conduct logistics operations to maintain MC rate. The proposed approach must include a provisioning plan, proposed shipping procedures, and customs clearance processes at all sites in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.2 and 1.4.2.1.

2.2.4 Subfactor 4: Transition Plan

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Transition approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), IAW Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a. The proposal must include an approach to successfully manage and accomplish phase-in with a detailed and transparent schedule which ensures no disruption to supply and maintenance in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.24.1.

b. Ensure a detailed schedule describing the process and timelines for obtaining passports, visas, site access credentials, facility leases, medical clearances, FACT training (where required), and security clearances in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.11 and all subparagraphs of 1.11, 1.13 and all subparagraphs of 1.13. Clearly describe the process and timelines for ensuring personnel are appropriately trained upon assumption of their duties in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.13.

c. The proposal must include a process to include a detailed schedule to obtain import/export licenses, ITAR processing, and customs clearances for all materials shipped outside continental United States (OCONUS) in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.4.9 and 1.24.1.

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002

2.3 Factor 2 – Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.1 Ratings:

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Substantial Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.

2.3.2 Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence 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 assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The Government may consider

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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.

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002

past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance.

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment:

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment.

Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)), as defined in paragraph 4.3 and 4.4 of Section L, past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example:

Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information submitted by offerors along with information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR) Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Scope, magnitude and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the C-12 CLS requirement. Consideration may be given to the following aircraft maintenance operations (in order of greater relevancy to least relevancy) when determining past performance:

1. Beechcraft King Air/Beech A200, A200CT, B200C, and 1900C C-12 maintenance

2. Twin turboprop fixed wing aircraft maintenance

3. Aircraft maintenance

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

1. Number of OCONUS locations in developing nations where aircraft components were shipped. Number should also include single aircraft sites

OCONUS

2. Number of aircraft sites managed

3. Number of aircraft managed and maintained

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the technical subfactors. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to complexity:

1. Accomplishment of full contractor logistics support at multiple OCONUS single or limited number of aircraft sites in developing nations

2. Maintaining workforce at difficult to staff locations, to include passports visas, and site credentials

3. Level of supply chain support to include clearing customs in foreign countries

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed- Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the C- 12 CLS requirement.

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) (including ratings and supporting narratives), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as past performance information which the Government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some or many.

Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements.

For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

UNKNOWN (UK) Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002

2.4.3 Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.3.1 above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Substantial, Satisfactory, or Limited Confidence, may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral Confidence rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.5 Factor 3 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) reasonableness (including completeness), (2) balanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an Offeror’s price may be rejected; if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices/rates proposed in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 9).

2.5.1 Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other techniques as needed. The Government will confirm all unit prices and rates in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 9) have a dollar amount or rate proposed as applicable. Offerors shall provide rational if any proposed unit price or rate is entered as zero in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 9).

2.5.2 Balance

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced, to include rationale for any CLIN price increase greater than 5% from one year to another, any CLIN price decrease from one year to another, or any CLIN price with no price change from one year to another. Evaluated offers that are

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002

determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.5.3 Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirements and must ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.5.4 Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable, balanced, and realistic pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable, balanced and/or realistic pricing.

2.5.5 Rounding

All proposed dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest cent, including hourly labor rates. All indirect rates shall be rounded to four decimal places. If any proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP. Compliance with the instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

2.5.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions.

The TEP calculation methodology is included in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 9) as a separate worksheet titled “Calculation Methodology.”

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the nine-month Phase-In Period, three-month Basic Period, eight one-year Option Periods, one six-month Option Period, and six-month extension. For the TEP calculation, the six month Extension Period unit prices/rates will be based on the proposed unit prices/rates of Option Period Nine. The plug numbers provided by the Government for the CR CLINs will be included in the TEP.

2.5.7 Estimating Techniques and Past Experience

The Government will review the basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based. The relevance and application of the Offeror's price estimates based on past

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002

experience will be reviewed by the Government. The Government reserves the right to obtain information from the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) as considered necessary.

2.5.8 Estimating, Purchasing, and Accounting Systems

As provided in the Price Volume, estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems will be reviewed. DCMA approval status will be noted. Any deviations from Offeror’s standard practices regarding estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems will also be reviewed.

2.5.8.1 Accounting System Requirements and Documentation

The status of the Offerors’ accounting system will be reviewed and verified. The Government. Defense Contract Audit Agency / Defense Contract Management Agency (DCAA)/DCMA) approval will be verified. Explanation of any deviations from the Offeror’s accounting system or deficiencies will also be reviewed. If the Offeror does not currently have an adequate accounting system for a cost type contract, the Government will confirm the Offeror submitted the Standard Form 1408, “Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist” to DCAA per their self-assertion statement provided in the Price Volume of their proposal. An Offeror must have an adequate accounting system in order to be awardable. Contract Award will not be delayed awaiting an Offeror to receive determination of adequacy of their accounting system.

2.5.9 Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision

The Government will review the Offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. The Offeror’s explanation of how any reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at an unacceptable performance risk will also be reviewed.

2.5.10 Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing

The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding all price assumptions, scope limitations, and/or qualifications utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand the Offeror’s proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, the assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.5.11 Probable Subcontractors/Subcontractor Pricing

The Government will review the subcontractor information provided to include the subcontractor name, description of effort, contract type, and the methodology used to determine subcontractor pricing fair and reasonable.

2.5.12 Proposed Over & Above (O&A) Labor Rates and Burden Rates

The Government will review the Price Volume to ensure the Offeror has indicated their understanding that the proposed firm fixed price ceiling rates are fully burdened and will apply to all out-years despite what current actuals are running at the time.

2.5.13 Services Contract Labor Standards/Collective Bargaining Agreement

(SCLS/CBA)

Although it is the Offeror’s responsibility to comply with SCLS, understanding and acknowledgement of compliance with SCLS and applicable CBAs will be reviewed.

Offerors must understand proposed rates and unit pricing shall be sufficient to be compliant with SCLS and CBAs. Any labor designated as CBA covered will be noted.

The Government will review the required table linking the Offeror’s proposed job categories/skill levels considered subject to the SCLS with the job categories/skill levels of the applicable Wage Determination (WD).

2.5.14 Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Material/Facilities

(GFP/GFE/GFM/GFF)

The Government will review all information provided in the Price Volume regarding compliance and understanding of GFP/GFE/GFM/GFF.

2.5.15 Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will ascertain that the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) offices responsible for administration of the Offeror’s Government contracts is provided.

2.5.16 Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices/rates, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. All pricing information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.5.17 Submission of Pricing Matrix

The Government will confirm the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 9) was completed in its entirety and will utilize it to evaluate the Offeror’s TEP.

CUI

FA8134-25-R-B002