DRAFT Attachment 21 - MARB Section M - Evaluation Basis for Award - 20231024.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Attachment 21 – Section M Section M. – Evaluation Basis for Award

M1. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

M1.1. Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one (1) contract resulting from this solicitation.

If an offeror is determined to be technically acceptable, a tradeoff may be made between past performance and price, with past performance being significantly more important than cost or price. The offeror must propose on all CLINs.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. The offeror is reminded that the Government will only evaluate one (1) proposal from each offeror. An award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, which includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

M1.2. Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate the offeror from the competition. The competitive range determination may be based on Factor 1, Technical, Factor 2, Past Performance, Factor 3, Price, contract documentation, or any combination thereof. A competitive range determination may eliminate the offeror based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions, or prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request. In addition, the PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If an offeror is excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors.

Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s demonstrated ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. The Government will evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation. For the purposes of efficiency and IAW FAR 15.306(c), Exchange with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, Competitive Range, the PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition for this Performance-Price Trade-off source selection.

If the PCO determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of an elimination decision will be provided to an unsuccessful offeror IAW FAR 15.503, Notifications to Unsuccessful Offerors.

M2. Proposal Evaluation

The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

M2.1. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306. If the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority (SSA), may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range.

This limit will be adjusted to the greatest number that permits an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to conduct discussions, then discussions will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306, Exchange with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals. Discussions shall be addressed in the form of evaluation notices (ENs). The offeror’s responses to ENs for Contract Documentation, Factor 1, Technical, Factor 2, Past Performance, and Factor 3, Price, will be incorporated into the FPR, and the FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s technical proposal has been evaluated as acceptable with a complete, fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic (if necessary) price at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR must be fully explained and substantiated, and are subject to evaluation, which may render the offeror’s proposal incomplete, unfair and unreasonable, unbalanced, and/or unrealistic (if necessary), causing the offeror to be ineligible for award.

M2.2. Cross Referencing

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

M3. (VOLUME I), Contract Documentation and Completed RFP M3.1. General

Each proposal will be reviewed for consistency, conformance, and completeness to instructions provided in Section L. – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors. This Volume is not rated and is not considered in the integrated assessment for determination of best value. However, an incomplete proposal may disqualify an offeror from further participation in the competition.

In addition, each offeror’s registration and data in the System for Award Management (SAM @ www.sam.gov) will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements with FAR Part 4. The offeror must have a current registration in SAM to be eligible for award. The offeror must clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation requirements and provide complete supporting rationale in the Contract Documentation Volume. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions to be unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

NOTE: The offeror shall make no changes or modifications outside of Section L. instructions, the solicitation, or its attachment(s). Any such changes or modifications will be rejected and will render the proposal ineligible for award.

M3.2. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provided a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrated a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposal to ensure it meets the requirements of the PWS.

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate proposals.

Factor 1: Technical (VOLUME II) Subfactor 1: Mobilization Approach Subfactor 2: Program Management Approach Subfactor 3: Mission Essential Services Continuation Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance (VOLUME III) Factor 3: Cost or Price (VOLUME IV)

M3.3. Relative Importance of Factors

The evaluation may result in an award being made to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror, whereby the decision to award is consistent with the evaluation factors and subfactors, and the SSA reasonably determining that superior past performance of the higher-priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The Government will not award a contract to an offeror that receives a Performance Confidence Assessment rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.” The source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process.

IAW FAR 15.304(e), the relative importance of each factor and subfactor are for those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable. Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance being significantly more important than cost or price.

http://www.sam.gov/

M3.4 Evaluation Methodology

Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. A contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 as supplemented. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price/Cost.

This may result in an award to a higher past performance confidence rated, technically acceptable, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the offeror with a higher past performance confidence rating that is technically acceptable, although higher priced, is the best value and outweighs the price difference of a lower priced, technically acceptable, lower past performance confidence rated offer.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

• Step 1 - Price Evaluation. All proposals that are determined timely and complete shall be evaluated for completeness, fair and reasonableness, balance, and realism (if necessary). Any offerors with prices determined to be incomplete, unfair, unreasonable, unbalanced or unrealistic (if necessary) shall not be considered for award, shall not be evaluated for technically capability, and shall not be evaluated for past performance. Only those offers with prices determined to be complete, fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic (if necessary) will proceed to Step 2.

• Step 2 - Technical and Past Performance Evaluation. In order of price, beginning with the lowest priced proposal, proposals will be evaluated for technical capability on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis, based on the ratings defined in Table 1 at M4.1. If the proposal receives an acceptable rating a past performance evaluation will be done. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with sections M5.0 – M5.6.

o If the lowest priced offer receives a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, and it receives an Acceptable technical rating, and the price is determined to be complete, fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic (if necessary), that offer represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process ends at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further evaluation of any other offers technical or past performance volumes.

o If the lowest priced offer does not receive a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest priced offer will be evaluated for technical and past performance and the process will continue until an offer receives an Acceptable technical rating and a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment rating, or until all offers are evaluated. If the lowest priced offer receives a performance confidence assessment rating of Satisfactory Confidence or lower, the Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror. In that event, the SSA shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision of all

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

evaluated offerors.

M3.5. Teaming Arrangement Agreement

If any sort of teaming arrangement exists for this solicitation, the teaming arrangement agreement will be reviewed for conformance and completeness to instructions provided under Section L. and to verify the prime offeror’s compliance with FAR Subpart 9.6, Contractor Team Arrangements.

The offeror will not be eligible for award when teaming arrangement documentation is found to be non-compliant.

M3.6. Facility Clearance Proof

The offeror will provide proof of their current facility clearance. Facility Clearance must be at the same level as the DD254 (Attachment 5, DD-254). The offeror must show that the prime offeror has: 1) at least a SECRET final facility clearance level, or 2) at least an interim SECRET facility clearance, or 3) an existing facility clearance sponsorship letter and documentation that reasonably demonstrates that the process is in the final stages and likely to be completed no later than 1 March 2024. Proposals that do not satisfy one (1) of the above criteria will be ineligible for award. In the case of Teaming Arrangements, all teaming partners must satisfy one (1) of the three (3) above criteria and provide proof of their current facility clearance.

M4. (Volume II), Technical Factor

Factor 1: Technical (VOLUME II)

Subfactor One - Mobilization Approach

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written Mobilization approach adequately integrates with the existing service provider (See Attachment 20, De-Mobilization Plan) during the sixty (60) day Mobilization/De-Mobilization period to accomplish all areas identified in PWS paragraph A11.1.

The Mobilization Plan shall fully describe, at a minimum, the offeror’s approach to the following:

1) Establish the Project Management Office (PMO), and recruit, retain, and hire necessary personnel; 2) Obtain all required certifications and clearances, including personnel security clearances; 3) Develop a systematic and disciplined approach to achieve an efficient and effective transition; 4) Participate in joint (Government, incumbent contractor, and offeror) inventories and sign for Government property; 5) Develop and submit all required contract deliverables; 6) Attend post-award meetings as required; 7) Accomplish PWS required training prior to contractor performance start date; and 8) Develop procedures to obtain vehicles, equipment, tools, supplies, materials, and other items necessary to perform day-to-day BOS operations in place of the Government Furnished Property (See Attachment 3, Government Furnished Property).

Subfactor Two – Program Management Approach

This subfactor is met when the offeror submits a written narrative that demonstrates a sound and

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

thorough plan which clearly outlines their management approach to meeting the requirements in each Tab of the PWS. This includes: 1) a strategy that addresses coverage of Key Personnel positions with trained, qualified and/or certified personnel; 2) a description of the proposed roles and responsibilities, to include position qualifications/descriptions for each organizational element (i.e., work center or shop) and the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for each Tab; 3) an Organizational Chart; 4) plans for staff cross-utilization as well as your staffing plans for one (1) deep-positions meeting changed, unscheduled, urgent, and surge requirements; 5) strategy for the continuous recruitment, retention, training and retaining of a qualified or certified and capable workforce; and 6) a cross-reference matrix which includes a description of subcontractor teaming arrangements or joint ventures that addresses organizational relationships and responsibility divisions between the prime contractor and subcontractor(s) as applicable.

Subfactor Three – Mission-Essential Services Continuation Plan

This subfactor is met when the offeror submits a written Mission-Essential Services Continuation Plan that adequately describes how the offeror will provide the continuity of mission-essential services of the PWS with as little as four (4) hours notification while continuing to meet contract performance standards. The plan includes their proposed capabilities of performing the work with an increased workload at a minimum of 25% for a full shift.

M4.1. Technical Rating

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the technical proposal is Acceptable or Unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the Table 1. Technical Ratings below. One (1) technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. For the offer to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Table 1. Technical Ratings

Technical Acceptable or Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M5. (VOLUME III), Past Performance Factor

M5.1. General

Past Performance will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the contract

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

successfully, which will be combined with the joint venture partners, teaming partner’s and/or significant subcontractor’s past performance record. This will be accomplished through a confidence assessment rating based on the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s past performance history that is recent, relevant, and contains quality concerning the requirements of this solicitation. The Past Performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance of services that are in similarity to the solicitation requirements and the quality of the offeror’s performance record.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s or Joint Venture members’ and if applicable, the significant subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, the context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past seven (7) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

M5.2. Past Performance Assessment

Past Performance will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully which will be combined with the joint venture partners, teaming partner’s and/or significant subcontractor’s past performance record. This will be accomplished through a confidence assessment rating based on the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s past performance history that is recent, relevant, and contains quality to the requirements of this solicitation. The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance of services that are in similarity to the solicitation requirements and the quality of the offeror’s performance record.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to: 1) Contractor Performance Acquisition Retrieval System (CPARS); 2) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); 3) Electronic Document Access (EDA); 4) other databases; or 5) interviews or questionnaires with Program Managers, COs, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

M5.3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission

In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e., Delivery or Task Order). Therefore, IAW Section L., if the contract the offeror is submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (e.g., including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual Delivery or Task Order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance.

M5.3.1. Series of Orders

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

• The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

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

M5.4. Relevancy Assessment

Relevant performance includes the performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar in scope, complexity, and the magnitude of the effort described in the RFP. For each Past Performance effort submitted (a minimum of two (2) but no more than five (5) efforts), relevancy will be determined by the similarity to the scope, complexity, and the magnitude of effort of the offeror’s performance. Relevancy will be assigned a rating outlined in Table 2, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

Performance efforts that do not meet the relevancy criteria will not be further evaluated. The following Table 3. Relevancy Definitions and Table 3.1. Relevancy Complexity Matrix – Areas of Past Performance apply and will be assigned to each contract effort submitted in the offeror’s Volume III Present or Past Performance proposal:

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Present/Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Table 3: Relevancy Definitions

PRESENT OR PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY MATRIX

Assessment Area Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat Relevant Not Relevant

Scope

The past performance contract effort submitted by offeror and any significant subcontractor(s), joint venture partners, teaming partners, and/or mentor-protégé partners reflects experience in the performance in ALL five (5) areas of the PWS: Tabs B, C, D, F, and G.

The past performance contract effort submitted by offeror and any significant subcontractor(s), joint venture partners, teaming partners, and/or mentor-protégé partners reflects experience in the performance in four

(4) areas of the PWS

– Tab F and any combination of three

(3) other areas of the PWS: Tabs B, C, D, and/or G.

The past performance contract effort submitted by offeror and any significant subcontractor(s), joint venture partners, teaming partners, and/or mentor-protégé partners reflects experience in the performance in three

(3) areas of the PWS

– Tab F, and any combination of two

(2) other areas of the PWS: Tabs B, C, D, and/or G.

The past performance contract effort submitted by offeror and any significant subcontractor(s), joint venture partners, teaming partners, and/or mentor-protégé partners reflects experience in the performance of less than three (3) areas of the PWS – any combination of, Tabs B, C, D, F, and/or G.

Complexity

The past performance contract effort reflects experience in the concurrent performance of ALL four (4) areas listed in Table 3.1, Relevancy Complexity Matrix.

The past performance contract effort reflects experience in the concurrent performance of any three (3) areas listed in Table 3.1, Relevancy Complexity Matrix.

The past performance contract effort reflects experience in the concurrent performance of any two (2) areas listed in Table 3.1, Relevancy Complexity Matrix.

The past performance contract effort reflects experience in the concurrent performance of less than two (2) areas listed in Table 3.1, Relevancy Complexity Matrix.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Assessment Area Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat Relevant Not Relevant

Magnitude of Effort

The past performance contract effort reflects concurrent or consecutive performance on contracts or task orders or job orders with a value of at least $7M annually.

The past performance contract effort reflects concurrent or consecutive performance on contracts or task orders or job orders with a value of at least $6M annually.

The past performance contract effort reflects concurrent or consecutive performance on contracts or task orders or job orders with a value of at least $5M annually.

The past performance contract effort reflects concurrent or consecutive performance on contracts or task orders or job orders with a combined value of less than $5M annually.

Table 3.1. Relevancy Complexity Matrix – Areas of Past Performance

1. Experience managing a workforce of more than 75 personnel with varying skill sets.

2. Experience in cross-utilizing employees over varying disciplines (e.g., materiel management, ground transportation and vehicle maintenance, traffic management operations, real property maintenance and fuels management).

3. Experience providing day-to-day operations while responding to Natural Disaster or Crisis Action and/or surge situations without operational degradation.

4. Experience in maintaining the schedule, deliverables and reports timely.

M5.5. Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the offeror’s performance quality (how well the offeror performed on an effort or contact) of recent and relevant efforts. The performance quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available to determine the offeror’s ability to supply the services that met the contract effort requirements. This includes information available for teaming partners and significant contractors.

The assessment may include adverse information. Adverse information is defined as past performance that supports an unsatisfactory or marginal rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment. 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 resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The offeror may have the opportunity to address adverse past performance information obtained from references (i.e., PPQs on which the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to comment), if

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

that information makes a difference in the Government’s decision to include the offeror or exclude the offeror from the competitive range. This allows the offeror a fair opportunity for rebuttal of any negative information that may not be due solely to the poor performance of the contractor, or that may not have been adequately resolved since the date of the information provided.

M5.6. Past Performance Evaluation Confidence Ratings

The Government will evaluate past performance and assign an overall confidence rating outlined in Table 4, Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, based on all the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be arrived at by viewing all past performance in the aggregate. The partners to the Joint Venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications necessary to perform the contract. The relevancy rating will be based on the scope, complexity, and the magnitude of the effort of up to five (5) recent contracts. As a result of the relevancy assessments and the quality of reported performance of the recent efforts evaluated, the offeror will receive a past performance confidence rating at the factor level as outlined in Table 4, Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, below.

Table 4: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Present/Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival 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.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE*: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)]. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

M6. (VOLUME IV) Cost or Price Proposal Factors

M6.1. CLIN Schedule Review

Compliance with Section L., L5.3., Section 2: Pricing Documents, regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. Evaluation of completeness, fairness and reasonableness, balance, and realism (if necessary) will be performed as described below.

The Government will evaluate the price data submitted per Section L. – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors (See Attachment 4, ITO Pricing Workbook), using one (1) or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine the price is complete, fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic (if necessary). The proposed prices shall be based on the offeror’s own technical approach submitted in Volume 1, Technical, and the Government’s PWS requirements. The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for completeness, fair and reasonableness, balance, and realism (if necessary) as identified in paragraphs below. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated IAW the Total Evaluated Price paragraph, below.

(NOTE: Offerors shall make no changes or modifications to the ITO Workbook. Any such changes or modifications will be rejected and render the proposal ineligible for award.

M6.2. Completeness

For completeness, offerors must provide all unit prices and extended prices for each CLIN that requires proposed pricing in the Section B – Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs CLIN Schedule and the Attachment 4, ITO Pricing Workbook. Incomplete proposals (without required prices) shall render an offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

M6.3. Fair and Reasonableness

The offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated to ensure the final, agreed-to price is fair and reasonable. Price reasonableness is normally established through adequate price competition but may also be determined through price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis

BYINGTON, BRYAN J CIV USAF AFRC HQ AFRC/A4CO

Recommend you recruit some help!

BYINGTON, BRYAN J CIV USAF AFRC HQ AFRC/A4CO

Recommend you recruit some help!

Techniques. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis with Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, may be required to support the proposed price.

M6.4. Balance

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for balance IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), Proposal Analysis Techniques, Unbalanced Pricing. The offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in the schedule of the solicitation. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M6.5. Price Realism

The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis on the lowest-priced proposal(s). Proposals are understood to reflect the offeror’s understanding of the technical requirements of the PWS in its entirety. Proposals with an unrealistic price (price too low) may be determined ineligible for award.

M6.6. Total Evaluated Price

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of all prices provided in the SF 33, section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost, and Attachment 4, ITO Pricing Workbook. The offeror’s proposed price will be reviewed for compliance with the instructions provided in Attachment 4.

NOTE: Attachment 4, ITO Pricing Workbook, will automatically calculate the TEP based on Offerors' inputs. Offerors are to verify the proposed prices are calculated correctly.

The TEP will be the sum of the evaluated prices for the entire five (5) year ordering period, and the six (6) month option extension are as follows:

• (Base Year CLINs 0001 – 0009, and CLIN 0019

• (Contract Year Two CLINS 1001 – 1009)

• (Contract Year Three CLINs 2001 – 2009)

• (Contract Year Four CLINs 3001 – 3009)

• (Contract Year Five CLINs 4001 – 4009)

• (Six-Month Extension Option CLINs 5001 – 5009, 5018).

• T&M CLINs 0010-0014 Priced via Attachment 4: ITO Pricing Workbook

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s price of the six (6) month option extension IAW FAR 52.217- 8, Option to Extend Services.

The evaluation of option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise those options.

(End of Section)