DRAFT ATTACHMENT 7 - Evaluation Factors for Award (52.212-2).pdf

ATTACHMENT 7 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

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 Technical Subfactor 2, Trailer Functions and Support Equipment, Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable in subfactors 1 and 3. 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 in Factor 1, Subfactors 1 and 3 and superior technical in Factor 1, Subfactor 2, and/or superior Past Performance of a higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

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

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

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

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

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

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any technical proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency. The correction potential shall be based on the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet Government requirements. If a deficiency is not considered correctible, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. The Government also reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from the competitive range where the technical proposal does not require a major proposal revision, but the offeror is not among the most highly rated offerors.

1.4. Competitive Range Determination

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

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(c). The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.5. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions 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.

1.6. Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Statement of Work (SOW) 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: ATTLA Certification, First Article, and Data Rights Subfactor 2: Trailer Functions and Support Equipment Subfactor 3: Tool Cabinets Installed into Trailers

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability in Technical Subfactors 1 and 3 are a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Technical Subfactor 2, Trailer Functions and Support Equipment, 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.

• When combined, Technical Subfactor 2 Trailer Functions and Support Equipment and Factor 2 Past Performance are significantly more important than Factor 3

Price. Individually, Technical Subfactor 2 Trailer Functions and Support Equipment and Factor 2 Past Performance are 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. For Factor 1 Technical Subfactor 1 and 3; the Government will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning adjectival ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. For Factor 1 Technical Subfactor 2, proposal will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.2 below. Factor 2 Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3. Factor 3 Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph

2.4 below. For the best value award decision, the SSA will assess the Factor 1 Technical Subfactor 2 rating, Factor 2 Past Performance rating, along with supporting information, and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The Technical evaluation will be based on each’s offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Subfactors 1, and 3 will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable and will not include tradeoff considerations. Subfactor 2 will be rated as Outstanding (Blue), Good (Purple), Acceptable (Green), Marginal (Yellow), or Unacceptable (Red). Tradeoff considerations will only be applied to Subfactor 2. A single deficiency identified within any subfactor will result in an Unacceptable (Red) rating for that subfactor. Any subfactor rated as Unacceptable (Red) will be considered unawardable. The subfactor ratings are as follows in the following tables:

Table 2.2.1 Technical Rating Methods The ratings will be applied to each subfactor as follows:

For Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 3 the only ratings which apply to this subfactor are Acceptable (Green) and Unacceptable (Red). There are no tradeoff considerations for any of this this these subfactors.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Table 2.2.2 Technical Rating Methods

Subfactor 2 is the only subfactor to include Factor 1 Technical tradeoff considerations.

The only ratings which apply to this subfactor are Outstanding (Blue), Good (Purple), Acceptable (Green) and Unacceptable (Red). To receive an Outstanding (Blue) or Good (Purple) rating, an offeror’s proposal must include one or more strengths and or a significant strength, as validated by the Government evaluation team, and in accordance with the definitions described above. Subfactor 2 will only be evaluated in relation to exceeding requirements, and the assignment of strengths/significant strengths. Tradeoff considerations for Subfactor 2 will be based on identified strengths/significant strengths within an offeror’s proposal.

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Purple Good

Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

At a minimum, the offeror must meet all criteria for each subfactor to be awardable. For the best value award determination, all offerors rated as Acceptable (Green) will be considered equal for these subfactors.

The evaluation criteria for each subfactor is as follows:

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: ATTLA Certification, First Article, and Data Rights

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach for ABDR Trailers.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements:

a. An approach to provide successful completion of ATTLA certification prior to First Article delivery which ensures the requirement of SOW paragraphs 1.81.1 and

1.8.2 are met.

b. An approach to provide successful completion of the First Article and Production deliveries which ensures the requirements of SOW paragraphs 1.8.1 and 1.8.2 are met.

c. Data Rights - The Government will evaluate the Government requested data rights versus the offeror’s data assertions. The subfactor minimum is met by completion of the CDRL matrix (Section L, Appendix 2) with supporting documentation for any assertion less than the Government requested.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Trailer Functions and Support Equipment

Offerors are afforded an opportunity to receive best value credit for a proposed approach which exceeds requirements listed below. The best value credit will be applied as strengths/significant strengths to the offeror’s proposal. A strength/significant strength is defined as follows:

Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance. For this evaluation, the words in the strength and significant strength definitions, “advantage of the Government” refers to the anticipated level of benefit the Government receives during contract performance as a result of the strength/significant strength.

To receive consideration as a strength/significant strength under Subfactor 2, Offerors must specifically identify which requirements the proposed approach exceeds in and provide convincing rationale supporting the strength/significant strength. The Government will assess the rationale for each proposed strength/significant strength and apply professional judgment to determine if the proposed strength/significant strength is an actual strength/significant strength and if so, the level of anticipated benefit during contract performance the Government will receive from the strength/significant strength. The Government will not identify any proposal aspect as a strength/significant strength unless it relates to the criteria listed below, and the aspect is specifically identified as a strength/significant strength in the Offeror’s proposal as described in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 3.2.4.

A general guideline for the ratings is as follows:

Good (Purple) or Outstanding (Blue): A proposal which includes one or more strengths/significant strengths identified by the Offeror in relation to Subfactor 2, and based on the judgment of the Government, the proposal includes sufficient convincing rationale to support at least one of the proposed strengths/significant strengths. Each strength/significant strength, along with the supporting rationale, will be evaluated separately. The overall rating will be based on the number of strengths/significant strengths assigned by the Government, and the level of anticipated benefits the Government will receive during contract performance from the strengths/significant strengths.

Acceptable (Green): A proposal in which there are no strengths identified by the Offeror in relation to Subfactor 2. This rating also includes a proposal in which there are one or more strengths identified by the Offeror in relation to Subfactor 2, however, based on the judgement of the Government, none of the proposed strengths includes convincing rationale to support the strength, and as a result, no strengths are assigned by the Government.

Marginal (Yellow): A proposal in an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements has not been demonstrated; and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (Red): This rating includes a proposal in which it does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

For the best value determination, tradeoff considerations for Subfactor 2 will be based on any Government-assigned strengths/significant strengths in each Offeror’s approach, along with the anticipated level of benefit received by the Government during contract performance resulting from the strength(s)/significant strength(s). The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed approach as it relates to exceeding requirements contained in SOW, for requirements listed below.

i. Trailer Tow Bar and Parking Brake System, SOW para 1.3.3

ii. Trailer Environmental Resistance, SOW para 1.3.6

iii. Trailer Pneumatic Connections, SOW para 1.3.8 thru 1.3.8.4

iv. Trailer Workstations, SOW para 1.3.9 thru 1.3.9.3

v. Trailer Material Storage, SOW para 1.3.10 thru 1.3.10.3

vi. Trailer Tools, Foam, and PVC, SOW para 1.5 thru 1.5.3.3

vii. Trailer Servicing Criteria, SOW para 1.4 thru 1.4.5

2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Tool Cabinets Installed into Trailers

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach for Tool Cabinets along with foam, PVC, and tooling that will be installed inside the ABDR Trailers. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements:

a. An approach to sufficiently install tool cabinets with the physical dimensions and specifications which ensures the requirements of SOW paragraphs 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 1.4.4 and 1.4.5 to include all subparagraphs are met.

b. An approach to sufficiently install all required Tools in Attachment X- Inventory Listing and installation of all foam and PVC which ensures the requirements of SOW paragraphs 1.5.1-1.5.3 are met.

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.

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.

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 volume and information obtained from other sources, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance.

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment:

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

2.3.2.2. Relevancy Assessment:

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)), as defined in paragraph

4.3 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) 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: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the proposed requirement.

Consideration may be given to the following elements (in order of greater relevancy to least relevancy) when determining past performance:

1. Trailer or similar equipment that houses internal content

2. ATTLA certified equipment

3. Tools used for aircraft repair

4. MIL STDS, especially those reference in SOW para 1.3

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

1. Manufacture bandwidth per year of trailers or equipment of near-similar requirement produced per year

2. Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform

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

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 proposed 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.

2.4. Factor 3 –Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness),

(2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Annual Price Changes, (5) Other Documentation, (6) Probable Subcontractors, (7) Submission of Pirce Model, and (8) 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, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.4.5 and ITO Attachment 4.1, Pricing Matrix (calculation methodology by CLIN). The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this section. 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.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all offerors. This TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided below. These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the Basic Period and all Option Periods. The Extension Period is in accordance with Clause 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in ITO Attachment 4.1, Pricing Matrix.

2.4.1. Price Reasonableness

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

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2). The Government may also use other techniques as needed.

2.4.2. Balanced 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.

2.4.3. 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.

2.4.4. 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 pricing.

2.4.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Addendum to FAR 52-212-1 pricing instructions. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format:

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for one

(1) 5-year Base Period, and five (5) 1-year Option Periods.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.