Attachment6SectionM.pdf

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 be made only between Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. 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 FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation) 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 Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 01 April 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition Gov website, https://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.

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153 file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153

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 that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(d)(5). 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 IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2). If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or FAR 15.506.

1.6. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, 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 on 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

1.7. 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.

1.8 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.

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: Live Demonstration of Tool Capabilities Subfactor 2: Contractor Requirements Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation

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 Factor 2 Past Performance and Factor 3 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 considered 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 Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 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.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the PCO reserves the right to award a contract(s) without the opportunity for proposal revision.

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 technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, unawardable. 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 Offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements with little potential for disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance.

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: Live Demonstration of Tool Capabilities

The Government will assess the Offeror’s live demonstration of Tool Capabilities.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors (ITO).

The Live demonstration shall be considered acceptable when the offeror's demonstration includes:

1) Successfully downloading twelve individual query results to Government provided CDs which:

a) Were generated from a single logon point

b) Are displayed in a format exportable to Excel

c) Contain 90% of the required part attribute data requested at the beginning of the live demonstrations

2) Display on the computer screen all part attribute data fields listed on PWS Appendix B and Appendix C that were not included in the twelve query results.

3) Successful completion of the demonstration within three hours.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Contractor Requirement

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach for Contractor Requirements. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors (ITO), To be acceptable, the offeror’s approach must ensure all requirements in PWS Sections 1.3 through 1.3.19 are met:

2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation

2.2.3.1 SB Evaluation

The government will assess the offeror's proposed SB Participation Plan. All offerors, both large and small businesses, will be evaluated on the extent of participation of small business concerns, identified by small business category, in performance of this contract opportunity. The government will evaluate the extent to which each offeror identifies and commits to SB in the performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture or first-tier subcontractor. The government will consider the complexity and variety of the work SB’s are to perform and the realism related to SB participation of the proposal.

Offeror’s proposal must meet the minimum mandatory total SB participation of 7 percent (through collective SB participation from any type of SB or sub-category SB).

Participation will be measured in dollars as a percentage of total contract value. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will be evaluated as small business participation. Offeror’s proposal will also include a proposed SB Subcontracting Plan, which must provide for a minimum goal for small disadvantaged businesses of five percent.

Offerors are advised that the SB Subcontracting Plan and the SB Participation Plan shall be incorporated into the contract. Performance against proposed goals in either plan may be reflected in contract performance assessment ratings, or liquidated damages –subcontracting plan pursuant to FAR clause at 52.219-16.

A prime contractor submitting an approved subcontracting plan under the “Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive SB Subcontracting Plans” in lieu of the SB Subcontracting Plan; however, the SB Participation goal must meet or exceed the minimum mandatory total SB goal of 7 percent even if the SB Subcontracting Plan goals are lower.

2.2.3.2. Evaluation of Commitment

In performing the evaluation, the government will examine an offeror’s proposal for the extent of which SB concerns are specifically identified, the extent of commitment to use such firms, and the extent of their participation in terms of the total value of the acquisition. The government will evaluate the realism of the proposal to meet the proposed SB goals. Offerors are cautioned to consider the FAR clause at 52.219-16 regarding their SB participation plan.

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 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

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.

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 Section L, paragraph 4.3.1), 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.

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: For this effort, scope generally refers to identifying, loading and/or updating weapon systems technical data as managed by the ALCs into the Tool to perform the requirements listed in this PWS. In addition, all government owned part attribute data fields are imported to the Tool. All government owned part attribute data fields and contractor supplied part data are appropriately linked in order to perform the requirements called out in the PWS. All imported data as well as all new data loaded into Tool are maintained as applicable source documents change

Magnitude: Relevancy in regards to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to the number of lines of data imported into a database, and linked with common data points across a large number of different system configurations. The requirement includes approximately 30.5 million lines of imported data that must be linked across approximately 3000 unique air and space system configurations. The magnitude assessment shall also consider total contract value.

Complexity: Relevancy in regards to complexity may be based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the subfactor criteria.

Consideration may also include a performance record of providing daily status to a large quantity of part numbers, and providing system access 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

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 DMSMS Predictive Tool 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)

(BLUE)

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)

(GREEN)

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

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

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)

(RED)

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.

2.3.3. 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) price reasonableness (including completeness),

(2) unbalanced 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 government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all offerors, including option prices. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP. The TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 3) The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the government to exercise such options or extensions.

2.5.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness, to include completeness.

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.

2.5.2. Unbalanced pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are 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 over 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; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

Proposed pricing increases greater than 5 percent annually or proposed price decreases annually will be verified and addressed pertaining to balance, as well as reasonableness, and realism.

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 requirement, 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 Pricing Data

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

2.5.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

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

The TEP Calculation Methodology is included in the Price Matrix (Attachment 3) as a separate worksheet entitled “Calculation Methodology”. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for the base year, 4 one-year option periods, and the 6-month extension. The 6-month Extension Period unit prices will be based on the proposed Option IV unit prices. The 6-month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary.

2.5.6. Pricing Particulars Evaluation

2.5.6.1. Rounding Evaluation

Compliance with rounding instructions will be verified during evaluation. If any pricing proposal deviates from the required format, the government will apply the specified format from Section L to determine the extended pricing and TEP.

2.5.6.2. Estimating Techniques Evaluation

The government will review the offeror’s basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based. These methods should be reflected in and similar to the offeror’s disclosure statement. Any deviations will be noted and reviewed. The summaries of the estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems will also be reviewed. The government reserves the right to obtain information from the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) as considered necessary.

2.5.6.3. Estimating Techniques and Past Experience Evaluation The relevance and application of the offeror’s price estimates based on past experience will be reviewed by the government.

2.5.6.4. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate / Management Decision Evaluation The government will review the offeror’s explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. This includes review of the areas of price reduction, such as profit, volume or location discounts, indirect rate reductions and so forth. Also, offeror’s explanation of how such reduction will not affect offeror’s responsibility or put the government at performance risk will be reviewed.

2.5.6.5. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing Evaluation The government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding price assumptions/limitations/qualifications utilized in the development of proposed pricing.

Such information will be used to understand offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, these assumptions may help provide support for the government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.5.6.6. Over & Above Travel G&A Rate Evaluation

The government will review proposed Fixed Price (FP) O&A Travel G&A rates to ensure price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.5.6.7. Probable Subcontractors Pricing Evaluation

The government will review the Price Volume for information pertaiing to subctontractor pricing. Evaluation of subcontractor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair and reasonable.

2.5.6.8. Government Field Support Agencies Evaluation

The government will review the price volume to check compliance with Section L requirement to identify the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Office (DCMA) office.

2.5.6.9. Other Documentation Evaluation

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data, other than certified cost or pricing data, as believed necessary to support, justify or clarify their proposed pricing.

All information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.5.7. Pricing Matrix

The government will confirm receipt of the completed Pricing Matrix in the required format, with all unit prices/rates provided. The proposed prices provided in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 3) will be used to calculate the TEP. The TEP will be used to evaluate the proposals as specified under this factor.