VOA_RFP_Amendment_01_dtd_7-28-2016.docx

Request for Proposal (RFP) No. BBG50-16-R-0000 Addendum No 1 dated July 28, 2016

The following changes have been incorporated to the solicitation:

Section B – Supplies or Services and Price/Costs

Item 1: B.2 Contract Term The period of performance start and ending date changed from August through July to read as:

Item 2: B.4.1 Labor Categories and Rates, the last paragraph changed:

Changed from:

In order to aid the Government in its evaluation of the proposed rates, all offerors shall provide cost and pricing data to demonstrate how the rates were determined.

To read as:

In order to aid the Government in its evaluation of the proposed rates, all offerors shall provide supporting documentation to demonstrate how the rates were developed for each labor category.

Section H – SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

Item 1: H.20 Organizational Conflict of Interest Notice, Section (c) last sentence replaced “Department of Defense” to read as, “Broadcasting Board of Governors”

Item 2: H.21 Data Rights was added

(a) All data developed under this contract shall be a deliverable under this contract and shall be provided to the Government with unlimited rights as defined in FAR clause 52.227-14 (Rights in Data-General).

(b) The data specified in FAR 52.227-14(b)(1) includes but is not necessarily limited to:

(1) All computer software, including source code, produced in performance of this contract; i.e. adapting existing BBG user interfaces for system control; and

(2) All documented processes, procedures, and services produced in performance of this contract; i.e. analyzing BBG data storage needs and utilization; and

(3) All Contractor created and maintained databases, including BBG equipment layout and elevation drawings, facility floor plans, and related operational and technical manuals; and

(4) All Contractor created training materials for BBG employees, including BBG facility maintenance procedures; and

(5) All data identified as a deliverable under the contract.

(c) Contractor agrees that the Government will have the rights as set forth in FAR clause 52.227-19 to use, duplicate or disclose any commercial computer software or commercial computer software documentation delivered under this contract.

(d) At the conclusion of each TO/DO order under this contract, or upon termination of this contract, all data developed in support of the task(s) shall be turned over to BBG in its entirety. The Contractor may not keep any paper or electronic copies of the data without the express written consent of the Contracting Officer. If the supporting software systems are not commercially available at the time of contract termination, the Contractor shall sell or license the software to BBG at a good faith mutually agreed upon price. Failure on the part of the Contractor to negotiate such pricing in good faith, or to provide such software on demand shall be subject to the Disputes clause of this contract.

Section I – CONTRACT CLAUSES

Item 1: I.1 Clauses Incorporated by Reference, the following FAR clauses was incorporated:

52.227-14 Rights in Data – General (May 2014) 52.227-19 Commercial Computer Software License (Dec 2007)

Section L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Item 1: L.8 Guidelines For Content, the total number of pages required for the RFP is hereby removed. There are no page limits required by the Offerors. The section changed as follows:

Changed from:

a. Each volume must be submitted as a separate folder and include an executive summary outlining the significant attributes of the volume. The total page count should not exceed 60 pages in total. The page limit includes full page figures and full page tables and diagrams, however they shall be no larger than 8.5 x 14 inches when printed. Text pages are to be printable on 8.5 x 11 inch paper, with 1 inch top/bottom/side margins, single spaced, with font size no smaller than 12 point with proportional spacing. The pages shall be numbered and each volume shall contain a Table of Contents.

Each volume must be submitted as a separate folder and include an executive summary outlining the significant attributes of the volume. Full page figures and full page tables and diagrams, shall be no larger than 8.5 x 14 inches when printed. Text pages are to be printable on 8.5 x 11 inch paper, with 1 inch top/bottom/side margins, single spaced, with font size no smaller than 12 point with proportional spacing. The pages shall be numbered and each volume shall contain a Table of Contents.

Item 2: L.9 Volume I: Contract Documentation, Section V Past Performance, Tab A.

Paragraph (a) is hereby changed to remove the word “experience” and (2) change in the definition of recent examples of past performance. The section changed as follows:

(a) The Offeror shall provide three (3) different examples of past performance information for active or complete “relevant/recent” contracts/task orders and/or subcontracts (including Federal, State, and local Government or commercial) directly related to the services identified in Section C, Statements of Work. At least one (1) past performance example must be from the Prime Offeror and at least one (1) experience described must be from the subcontractor. At least one (1) past performance must demonstrate the use of creative solutions or innovations in achieving or exceeding customer objectives. All past performance experience shall be completed by either the Prime Offeror or proposed subcontractor.

1. Recent is defined as within the last three (3) to five (5) years from the date of release of this RFP.

(a) The Offeror shall provide three (3) different examples of past performance information for active or complete “relevant/recent” contracts/task orders and/or subcontracts (including Federal, State, and local Government or commercial) directly related to the services identified in Section C, Statements of Work. At least one (1) past performance example must be from the Prime Offeror and at least one (1) described must be from the subcontractor. At least one (1) past performance must demonstrate the use of creative solutions or innovations in achieving or exceeding customer objectives. All past performance reference identified shall be completed by either the Prime Offeror or proposed subcontractor.

1. Recent is defined as within the last three (3) from the date of release of this RFP.

Item 3: L.10 Volume II: Technical/Management Capability and Approach, Section I, Tab C, section (a).

Corrected grammatical errors. The corrections are highlighted:

a. This section shall show that the offeror fully understands the specific and unique program requirements of the VOA by discussing how the offeror proposes to satisfy the VOA mission requirements and Statement of Work. Proposal should demonstrate sound technical competency in support of key mission areas of the Statement of Work and VOA performance objectives to the Hypothetical Task Order, Attachment J.1. The offeror must provide his approach to the following key mission areas as described in the VOA Statement of Work:

Task Area 1: Planning, Engineering and Design Support Task Area 2: Installation and Configuration Support Task Area 3: System Integration Support Task Area 4: Equipment Acquisition Support Task Area 5: Documentation and Logistical Support Task Area 6: Training Task Area 7: Maintenance and Repair Support Task Area 8: Operations Support Task Area 9: Studio Set & Lighting Design, Fabrication and Installation

In addition to the above requirements, offerors shall provide a proposal for each of the hypothetical task orders that will be used by the Government to evaluate offeror’s proposals. Responses to the hypothetical task orders shall include a technical proposal and cost proposal, see Section L.12. Proposal rates and labor categories shall be the same as the contractor proposal for Base and Option period. Each hypothetical task orders shall not exceed three (3) single-side pages in length. Attachment J.2, Labor Categories and Descriptions must be updated with any added labor categories.

Item 4: L.10 Volume II: Technical/Management Capability and Approach, Section I, Tab C section (c).

Corrections made to clarify the section. Changes are highlighted

Changed from:

c. Sufficient details must be provided for all mission areas cited in the preceding paragraphs to permit the Government to fully evaluate the offeror’s technical approach. The following factors will be used to evaluate the VOA mission areas and objectives: assessed for Subsection

Evaluation Factors:

1) Understanding the Statement of Objectives.

2) Validity, feasibility, and risk of proposed approach.

3) Demonstrated experience and expertise in key mission arears.

4) Proposed labor mix

d. Offerors shall submit a hypothetical task order proposal in response to the sample performance work statements, Attachment J.1, SOW – Hypothetical Task Orders. Separate proposals are required for each hypothetical Task Order SOW. The following evaluation factors for the task order proposals will be used to evaluate the Hypothetical Task Orders: assessed for Subsections 2

To read as:

c. Sufficient details must be provided for all mission areas cited in the preceding paragraphs to permit the Government to fully evaluate the offeror’s technical approach. The following factors will be used to evaluate the VOA mission areas and objectives:

Evaluation Factors:

1) Understanding the Statement of Objectives.

2) Validity, feasibility, and risk of proposed approach.

3) Demonstrated experience and expertise in key mission arears.

4) Proposed labor mix

d. Offerors shall submit a hypothetical task order proposal in response to the sample performance work statements, Attachment J.1, SOW – Hypothetical Task Orders. Separate proposals are required for each hypothetical Task Order. The following evaluation factors for the task order proposals will be used to evaluate the Hypothetical Task Orders:

Item 5: L.10 Volume II: Technical/Management Capability and Approach, Section II, Tab B, section (b).

Corrections made to clarify the section. Changes are highlighted

b. Discuss how the prime Offeror will assess the technical and contractual requirements of solicited tasks and determine the most effective allocation of effort among prime, subcontractors, and/or team members.

b. Discuss how the Offeror will assess the technical and contractual requirements of solicited tasks and determine the most effective allocation of effort among prime, subcontractors, and/or team members.

Item 6: L.10 Volume II: Technical/Management Capability and Approach, Section II, Tab B, section (f)(a). Corrections made to clarify the section. Changes are highlighted

a. The Offeror shall provide resumes for the key personnel position, Program Manager. Resumes are limited to two (2) pages and shall provide the following information:

a. The Offeror shall provide resumes for the key personnel position, Program Manager. Resumes are limited to two (2) pages each and shall provide the following information:

Item 7: L.10 Volume II: Technical/Management Capability and Approach, Section II, Tab B, section (h). Section h, was added to provide the evaluation factors for the Management Capability and Approach. The section h, shall read as follows:

h. Sufficient details must be provided for all mission areas cited in the preceding paragraphs to permit the Government to fully evaluate the offeror’s Management Capability and Approach. The following factors will be used to evaluate the Management Capability and Approach:

Evaluation Factors:

1) Understanding the Statement of Objectives.

2) Validity, feasibility, and risk of proposed approach.

3) Demonstrated experience and expertise in key mission arears.

Item 8: L.11 Volume III: Cost/Price, Tab C, section (h). Corrections made to clarify the section. Changes are highlighted

Tab C - IDIQ Pricing Template. The Offeror shall complete Section B.4.2, IDIQ Pricing Table, in accordance with Section B.4 with the fully burdened ceiling labor rates for ALL labor categories it intends to provide, inclusive of all contract periods, utilizing the labor category descriptions with Attachment J.2, Labor Categories and Descriptions, note, all labor rates must have a labor categories description. Section B.4.2, IDIQ Pricing Table shall be returned in a format compatible with Microsoft Excel (.xls or .xlsx).

Any offered discounts from the Offeror’s standard pricing should be noted. Any labor categories not identified in the Attachment J.2, Labor Categories and Descriptions that is necessary to complete the requirement, they may be added. If additional labor categories are added, the Offeror shall provide rationale for such categories. Offerors should propose fixed labor rates that will apply to for both Government Site and Contractor Site.

Tab C - IDIQ Pricing Template. The Offeror shall complete Section B.4.2, IDIQ Pricing Table, in accordance with Section B.4 with the fully burdened labor rates for ALL labor categories it intends to provide, inclusive of all contract periods, utilizing the labor category descriptions with Attachment J.2, Labor Categories and Descriptions, note, all labor rates must have a labor categories description. Section B.4.2, IDIQ Pricing Table shall be returned in a format compatible with Microsoft Excel (.xls or .xlsx).

Any offered discounts from the Offeror’s standard pricing should be noted. Any labor categories not identified in the Attachment J.2, Labor Categories and Descriptions that is necessary to complete the requirement, they may be added. If additional labor categories are added, the Offeror shall provide rationale for such categories. Offerors should propose fixed labor rates that will apply to both Government Site and Contractor Site.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Item 1: M.2 Basis for Contract Award, second paragraph. Corrections made to clarify the section.

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f), the Government intends to award multiple Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to responsible Offerors whose proposals are most advantageous and represents the best overall value to the Government, based on the evaluation factors in Section M.9 3.

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f), the Government intends to award multiple Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to responsible Offerors whose proposals are most advantageous and represents the best overall value to the Government, based on the evaluation factors in Section M.3.

Item 2: M.3 Evaluation Process. Corrections made to clarify the section, subfactors was added to (1) Technical. The section shall read as follows:

Each proposal will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s ability to support VOA related mission support services in accordance with the Government requirements of this solicitation. Proposals will not be scored or ranked. Proposals will be evaluated based on the following evaluation factors. Factor 1 and 2 are listed in descending order of importance and when combined are MORE IMPORTANT than cost/price. The Hypothetical Task Order will be evaluated in conjunction with Factors 1 and 3.

(1) Technical

Each proposal will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s ability to support VOA related mission support services in accordance with the Government requirements of this solicitation. Proposals will not be scored or ranked. Proposals will be evaluated based on the following evaluation factors. Factor 1 and 2 are listed in descending order of importance and when combined are MORE IMPORTANT than cost/price. The Hypothetical Task Order will be evaluated in conjunction with Factors 1 and 3.

(1) Technical

Item 3: M.4 Evaluation Factors for Award. Corrections made to clarify the subsection. The following changes are hereby made:

Change from:

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). Proposals will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach has been adequately considered, defined, and have satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation requirements. Proposals will also be evaluated for the extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the Proposal Submission Section L. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The following factors will be used to support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals:

Definitions. In order to provide insight into the Government’s value of the factors, the following terminology is used:

Outstanding

Proposed approach indicates an exceptionally thorough and comprehensive understanding of the requirements and objectives and displays the highest levels of technical competence and managerial capability. The proposal significantly exceeds all requirements and sets forth plans and approaches that show the highest probability of obtaining superior performance. The proposal has no weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is extremely low.

Good

Proposed approach indicates a thorough understanding of the requirement and objectives and displays technical competence and managerial capacity. The proposal meets or exceeds all requirements and sets forth plans and approaches that show a good probability of obtaining effective performance. There are some strengths and a few minor weaknesses which indicate that the risk of unsuccessful performance is low. The minor weaknesses are more offset by strengths.

Acceptable

Proposed approach indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and objectives. The proposal displays minimal technical competence and managerial capability. The proposal meets requirements, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is low. The proposal has a few strengths and some weaknesses, but the weaknesses are generally offset by strengths.

Unacceptable

Proposed approach indicates a lack of understanding of the requirements and objectives. The proposal cannot be made acceptable. There are numerous weaknesses and the risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

The following factors will be used to support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals:

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). Proposals will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach has been adequately considered, defined, and have satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation requirements. Proposals will also be evaluated for the extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the Proposal Submission Section L. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision.

Definitions. In order to provide insight into the Government’s value of the factors, the following terminology is used:

Outstanding

Proposed approach indicates an exceptionally thorough and comprehensive understanding of the requirements and objectives and displays the highest levels of technical competence and managerial capability. The proposal significantly exceeds all requirements and sets forth plans and approaches that show the highest probability of obtaining superior performance. The proposal has no weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is extremely low.

Good

Proposed approach indicates a thorough understanding of the requirement and objectives and displays technical competence and managerial capacity. The proposal meets or exceeds all requirements and sets forth plans and approaches that show a good probability of obtaining effective performance. There are some strengths and a few minor weaknesses which indicate that the risk of unsuccessful performance is low. The minor weaknesses are more offset by strengths.

Acceptable

Proposed approach indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and objectives. The proposal displays minimal technical competence and managerial capability. The proposal meets requirements, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is low. The proposal has a few strengths and some weaknesses, but the weaknesses are generally offset by strengths.

Unacceptable

Proposed approach indicates a lack of understanding of the requirements and objectives. The proposal cannot be made acceptable. There are numerous weaknesses and the risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

The following factors will be used to support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals:

Item 4: M.4 Evaluation Factors for Award Factor 1 – Technical. Subfactors was separated out to match the sequential order of the evaluation process of M.3, and (2) Management Capability and Approach subfactor was added. The following changes are hereby made:

Factor 1 – Technical Capability and Approach:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Capability and Approach based on the degree to which it is clear, comprehensive, detailed, effective, and demonstrates how it provides, retains and applies the necessary relevant corporate and leadership experience, and subject matter expertise required to successfully perform the overall Broadcast Engineering and Technical requirements within the IDIQ level statement of work (See Section C.1). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s identification of key technical elements (risks, special requirements, assumptions, risk mitigation strategies) related to the IDIQ level Statement of Work that may impact the proposed solution to or success of the overall IDIQ level requirement throughout the full period of performance of the contract. The Offeror’s technical capability and approach will be evaluated based on the degree to which there is demonstration of a clear, comprehensive, detailed, and effective delineation of any proposed contractor teaming approach utilized to provide the required personnel skills and technical expertise to accomplish all elements of the IDIQ level Statement of Work for the duration of the contract. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Capability and Approach for the following Hypothetical Task Order task arears:

Hypothetical Task Order (Task Areas 1 – 9). The Offeror’s technical capability and approach for the Hypothetical Task Area 1: Planning, Engineering and Design Support, Task Area 2: Installation and Configuration Support, Task Area 3: System Integration Support, Task Area 4: Equipment Acquisition Support, Task Area 5: Documentation and Logistical Support, Task Area 6: Maintenance and Repair Support, Task Area 7: Training, Task Area 8: Operations Support, and Task Area 9: Studio Set & Lighting Design, Fabrication and Installation, will be evaluated based on the degree of demonstration of the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements and proposed specific application of methodologies to accomplish the work. The Offeror’s technical capability and approach will be evaluated in respect to the identification of key technical elements (risks, special requirements, assumptions, risk mitigation strategies) related to the hypothetical Task Order (task area) statement of work that may impact the proposed solution to or success of the overall requirement. In conducting the evaluation, the Government will be seeking to determine the overall extent to which the Offeror fully understands the technical requirements and demonstrates a capability to quickly, effectively, and efficiently perform the task(s) described.

Factor 1a – Technical Capability and Approach:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Capability and Approach based on the degree to which it is clear, comprehensive, detailed, effective, and demonstrates how it provides, retains and applies the necessary relevant corporate and leadership experience, and subject matter expertise required to successfully perform the overall Broadcast Engineering and Technical requirements within the IDIQ level statement of work (See Section C.1). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s identification of key technical elements (risks, special requirements, assumptions, risk mitigation strategies) related to the IDIQ level Statement of Work that may impact the proposed solution to or success of the overall IDIQ level requirement throughout the full period of performance of the contract. The Offeror’s technical capability and approach will be evaluated based on the degree to which there is demonstration of a clear, comprehensive, detailed, and effective delineation of any proposed contractor teaming approach utilized to provide the required personnel skills and technical expertise to accomplish all elements of the IDIQ level Statement of Work for the duration of the contract. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Capability and Approach for the following Hypothetical Task Order task arears:

Factor 1b – Management Capability and Approach:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Management Capability and Approach to the extent to which it is clear, comprehensive, detailed, effective, and demonstrates capability to manage Task Orders involving the spectrum of professional disciplines and technical expertise required by the IDIQ level Statement of Work. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s management and organization demonstrates sound and reasonable business practices with respect to managing the resultant IDIQ contract to include: coordination with principal Government representative (CO, COR, Program Manager) and any proposed teaming partners; task order management, including the planning, execution, subcontractor work assignment and coordination, tracking and reporting of the task orders awarded under the resultant contract; and quality control throughout the term of the proposed contract. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s organizational structure used to support the contract to include all lines of authority and roles and responsibilities of the prime Offeror’s management personnel and the subcontractors.

Factor 1c - Hypothetical Task Order (Task Areas 1 – 9):

The Offeror’s technical capability and approach for the Hypothetical Task Area 1: Planning, Engineering and Design Support, Task Area 2: Installation and Configuration Support, Task Area 3: System Integration Support, Task Area 4: Equipment Acquisition Support, Task Area 5: Documentation and Logistical Support, Task Area 6: Maintenance and Repair Support, Task Area 7: Training, Task Area 8: Operations Support, and Task Area 9: Studio Set & Lighting Design, Fabrication and Installation, will be evaluated based on the degree of demonstration of the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements and proposed specific application of methodologies to accomplish the work. The Offeror’s technical capability and approach will be evaluated in respect to the identification of key technical elements (risks, special requirements, assumptions, risk mitigation strategies) related to the hypothetical Task Order (task area) statement of work that may impact the proposed solution to or success of the overall requirement. In conducting the evaluation, the Government will be seeking to determine the overall extent to which the Offeror fully understands the technical requirements and demonstrates a capability to quickly, effectively, and efficiently perform the task(s) described.

Item 5: M.4 Evaluation Factors for Award Factor 3 – Cost/Price. Corrections made to clarify the subsection. The following changes are hereby made:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Cost/Price for accuracy, completeness (i.e., compliance with Section B and the Cost/Price instruction in Section L), and price reasonableness, cost/price realism, and unbalanced pricing. Price proposals will not be scored, ranked, nor rated. Price reasonableness of the proposed labor rates will be established by performing price analysis techniques for commercial and non-commercial pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b).

The Government will evaluate all proposed labor categories, labor rates unit price and total prices submitted on Section B.4, Pricing Table and the hypothetical task orders to determine price realism and the Offerors’ understanding of the performance requirements.

The Government may evaluate cost and price realism with regard to the ability of the offeror to meet requirements in terms of skills required, complexity of disciplines and job difficulty, if the Government deems such analysis necessary. Compare the offeror’s cost and price proposal to the technical proposals to determine the offeror’s (1) understanding of work to be performed and (2) capability and capacity to provide the required services and accomplish the required Hypothetical Task Areas 1-9. The Government may also assess the labor support information submitted pursuant to Section L.12, Volume - Cost and Price proposal, as part of any cost realism analysis conducted.

Unbalanced Pricing will be established through the application of cost and/or price analysis techniques on all proposed labor categories. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the cost of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated and poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the proposed costs/price is materially unbalanced between line items or sub-line items within a pricing period, or between line items or sub-line items for the basic requirement and any option period.

If needed, the Government intends to exercise the option under FAR 52.217-8 without further competition or need for to justification for other than full and open competition. For purposes of evaluation, the potential need to exercise the option under FAR 52.217-8 to extend the period of contract performance for the maximum period of six (6) months beyond the period of performance will be considered the same for all Offerors. In considering the price of the base period and any option periods, the Government will consider that if the extension of service clause (i.e. FAR 52.217-8) is exercised, it will be on the exact same rates and terms, other than length of performance, as the base or option period being extended. The Government will determine whether the price, inclusive of all options, is fair and reasonable and in combination with the other evaluation factors specified in the RFP, represents the best value to the Government.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Cost/Price for accuracy, completeness (i.e., compliance with Section B and the Price instruction in Section L), and price reasonableness. Price proposals will not be scored, ranked, nor rated. Price reasonableness of the proposed labor rates will be established by performing price analysis techniques for commercial and non-commercial pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b).

The Government will evaluate all proposed labor categories, labor rates submitted on Section B.4, Pricing Table and the hypothetical task orders to determine price realism and the Offerors’ understanding of the performance requirements.

The Government may evaluate price realism with regard to the ability of the offeror to meet requirements in terms of skills required, complexity of disciplines and job difficulty, if the Government deems such analysis necessary. Compare the offeror’s cost and price proposal to the technical proposals to determine the offeror’s (1) understanding of work to be performed and (2) capability and capacity to provide the required services and accomplish the required Hypothetical Task Areas 1-9. The Government may also assess the labor support information submitted pursuant to Section L.12, Volume - Cost and Price proposal, as part of any cost realism analysis conducted.

Unbalanced Pricing will be established through the application of cost and/or price analysis techniques on all proposed labor categories. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the cost of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated and poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the proposed costs/price is materially unbalanced between line items or sub-line items within a pricing period, or between line items or sub-line items for the basic requirement and any option period.

If needed, the Government intends to exercise the option under FAR 52.217-8 without further competition or need for justification for other than full and open competition. For purposes of evaluation, the potential need to exercise the option under FAR 52.217-8 to extend the period of contract performance for the maximum period of six (6) months beyond the period of performance will be considered the same for all Offerors. In considering the price of the base period and any option periods, the Government will consider that if the extension of service clause (i.e. FAR 52.217-8) is exercised, it will be on the exact same rates and terms, other than length of performance, as the base or option period being extended. The Government will determine whether the price, inclusive of all options, is fair and reasonable and in combination with the other evaluation factors specified in the RFP, represents the best value to the Government.