DRAFT CKI 2 Section M July 24.pdf

CUI//SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

DRAFT SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR

C-130J BLOCK UPGRADE (BU) 7.0/8.1

CONTRACTOR KIT INSTALLATIONS 2

(CKI 2)

Solicitation #FA8625-24-R-B001

July 2024

Prepared by:

Mobility Directorate, C-130J Program Office (AFLCMC/WLNN)

2590 Loop Road, Bldg 558

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

CUI//SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE FA8625-24-R-B001

Section M

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 General

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

1.2 Solicitation Requirements

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.4 Competitive Range Determination

1.5 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

1.6 Discussions

1.7 Correction Potential of Proposals

2.0 evaluation factors and relative importance

2.1 Evaluation Factors

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

3.0 FActor 1: technical

3.1 Technical Evaluation

3.2 Assessing Strengths

3.3 Subfactor 1: Overall Installation

3.3.1 MoM #1: C-130J TCTO/TO Instructions

3.3.2 MOM #2: HC-130J TCTO/TO Instructions

3.3.3 MOM #3: Kit/Inventory Management

3.4 Subfactor 2: Maintenance

3.5 Subfactor 3: Management

3.5.1 MOM #1: Readiness

3.5.2 MOM #2: Workflow

3.6 Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation

4.0 Factor 2: Past Performance

4.1 Confidence Assessment

4.2 Evaluation Process

4.3 Recency Assessment

4.4 Relevance Assessment

4.5 Quality Assessment

5.0 Factor 3: Price Factor

5.1 Completeness

5.2 Reasonableness

5.3 Unbalanced Pricing

5.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 20 August 2022. These documents are available electronically at the FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far.

A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements.

The Government will select for contract award the Offeror whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the following factors:

(1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. The combined Technical and Past Performance factors are significantly more important than price. The Technical Performance factor is equal to the Past Performance factor. 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 superior technical capability and/or the lower technical risk of the higher priced offer outweighs the price difference. While the Government source selection team 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.

1.2 Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements per the Performance Work Statement (PWS), in addition to those identified as factors or 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 https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the CKI 2 program. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, program requirements, prices submitted, or the availability of funds.

1.4 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. Any competitive range determination will be based on all evaluation criteria. The Government 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. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors that are not among the most highly rated based on their initial proposal evaluation results; after discussions; or prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request. The range may also be further reduced for purposes of efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they will be notified by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) IAW FAR 15.503 and may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.5 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors as defined in Section M, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows it to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP) or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the RFP, or in some other manner, do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the solicitation.

1.6 Discussions

The Government intends to award the contract without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary and/or in the best interest of the Government. If discussions occur, they will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time of discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and, thus ineligible for award.

1.7 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency. A deficiency is “a material failure of a proposal to meet the Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level” (FAR 15.001). The judgment of “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range, if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

2.1 Evaluation Factors

The following evaluation factors and subfactor will be used to evaluate each proposal.

• Factor 1: Technical o Subfactor 1 – Overall Installation o Subfactor 2 – Maintenance o Subfactor 3 – Management o Subfactor 4 – Small Business Participation

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

In accordance with FAR 15.304(d), Technical and Past Performance are approximately equal in importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

3.0 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

3.1 Technical Evaluation

The technical evaluation is a combined Technical Acceptability/Risk Rating. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals based on the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement and includes consideration of the significant strengths, uncertainties, and deficiencies found in the proposal.

Only those technical proposals determined to be Outstanding, Good, or Acceptable initially, will be considered for award.

The Offeror’s proposal shall address each of the subfactors. Detailed instructions are included in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors. During evaluation of each proposal, the government will assign each Subfactor 1-3 a rating as shown below in Table 1. A rating of Unacceptable in one or more subfactors will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The government will assign Subfactor 4 a rating of acceptable or unacceptable, as defined in Section 3.6 of this document. For each Technical Subfactor, Offerors must meet each Measure of Merit (MoM), and have a risk rating of Moderate or better, in order to be considered for award.

The risk assessment will include the Offeror’s self-identified risks and proposed mitigations (if applicable). The Government may also identify and consider risks not identified by an Offeror.

The definitions for each risk assessment are as shown below in Table 2.

A Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

A Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

TABLE 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low or moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low or moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

TABLE 2 – Technical Risk Descriptions

Adjectival Rating

Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal Contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special Contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special Contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3.2 Assessing Strengths

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to assess one or more strengths to Offerors that exceed the requirements in the Maintenance (Subfactor 2) and Management (Subfactor 3) Subfactors. In order to achieve a strength as defined below, the Offeror’s approach must address how it will benefit the Government. In addition, the Offeror shall provide additional PWS language or other contract documentation to capture the proposed strength in a contract requirement. This documentation shall be submitted with Volume II and will be incorporated into the PWS/Contract at award. Note: There are no opportunities for a strength under Subfactors 1 or 3.

A Strength is 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.

A Significant Strength is 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.

Maintenance Subfactor 2: The Offeror will receive either a strength or a significant strength for longer durations when all maintenance, day-to-day care and feeding, and hangar/ramp “space” is included in the proposal beyond modification completion due to various circumstances regardless of where the delayed duration responsibility lies. The proposal must describe in detail clear start and stop times/events for the duration of time after completion of the modification such that for each modification, the days can be counted. For proposals that identify the duration through 60 days past completion of the modification, 1 strength will be given; for proposals that identify the duration through 120 days, a significant strength will be given.

Management Subfactor 3, MOM #1: One strength will be given if the Offeror proposes a plan to shelter the aircraft in permanent and temporary shelters while the aircraft is in residence at the Offeror’s facilities (except when tasks require the aircraft to be outside). Two strengths will be given if the Offeror proposes a plan to shelter the aircraft in permanent shelters only while the aircraft is in residence at the Offeror’s facilities (except when tasks require the aircraft to be outside).

3.3 Subfactor 1: Overall Installation

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to the overall steady-state installation of the Combined Block Upgrade 7.0/8.1 kit IAW the applicable Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTOs) and reference Technical Orders (TOs).

3.3.1 MoM #1: C-130J TCTO/TO Instructions

The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach for a steady-state, on-time installation (from date of DD1149/induction to DD250/departure) of the C-130J according to the TCTOs and reference TOs. The approach will be evaluated in the following areas: 1) high-level project plan; 2) a clear description of and estimated number of days to complete each phase of the installations in steady state (including quality assurance touch points); and 3) the illustration of all movement of aircraft from arrival to delivery.

Reference: PWS 3.2, 3.3.1, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 11.3

3.3.2 MOM #2: HC-130J TCTO/TO Instructions

The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach for on-time installation (from date of DD1149/induction to DD250/departure) of the HC-130J according to the TCTOs and reference TOs. The approach will be evaluated in the following areas: 1) high-level project plan; 2) a clear description of and estimated number of days to complete each phase of the installations in steady state (including quality assurance touch points); and 3) the illustration of all movement of aircraft from arrival to delivery.

Reference: PWS 3.2, 3.3.1, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.2.1, 5.2.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 11.3

3.3.3 MOM #3: Kit/Inventory Management

The Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to kit and inventory management. The evaluation will be holistic across the following elements: receipt, inspection, identifying/sorting, warehousing, inventory control, and reporting although not every element will be necessary in each area evaluated. The three areas to be evaluated include: 1) BU 7.0/8.1 kits; 2) Installation Support Equipment; and 3) Contractor Furnished Equipment (including common support equipment, tooling, bench stock and test equipment).

Reference: PWS 4.1, 4.2, 6.2, 6.3, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1

3.4 Subfactor 2: Maintenance

The Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to the general day-to-day maintenance (aka “care and feeding”) and Over & Above capabilities for the C-130J and its variants during the time the aircraft is in residence at the Offeror’s facilities.

The proposal will be evaluated on facility capabilities to support the modification and O&A work. The “duration” of the maintenance included will also be evaluated to ensure a clear understanding of the PWS and give opportunities for strengths to be awarded. For the elements in PWS Attachment 9, the proposal shall clearly identify the quantity of each care and feeding action that is included in the proposal.

Reference: PWS 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, PWS Attachment 9

3.5 Subfactor 3: Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to the management of the Combined BU 7.0/8.1 installation, aircraft maintenance, and small business participation. MOM #3, Small Business Participation will be evaluated as acceptable/unacceptable.

3.5.1 MOM #1: Readiness

The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach to managing the Combined BU 7.0/8.1 installation start-up activities, to include readiness for the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Instruction 8210.1 inspection and the Installation Readiness Review. The Government will evaluate evidence of installation facilities to support the Government’s “Most Likely Schedule” in PWS Attachment 1, including the following: 1) permanent/temporary hangars, warehousing, and current capacity for this effort; 2) manpower (to include training, recruiting, retention); 3) certifications (i.e. qualified maintenance technicians to include airframe and powerplant certifications); and 4) facility/personnel security (including COMSEC capabilities).

If any of these requirements are not currently in place or available, the evaluation will rely on the Offeror’s description of how they will be in place prior to installation.

Reference: PWS 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.2, 6.4, 9.0, 10.2, PWS Attachment 1

3.5.2 MOM #2: Workflow

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the proposed plan to complete 19 modifications in one year (May 2026 – April 2027, with 13 C-130J-30s in steady state and the first 6 HC-130Js). The proposal must contain all the areas requested in Section L: 1) description of aircraft space and movement; 2) estimated staff (numbers of each specialty) at each phase of the modification (and in total); and 3) estimated daily work hours, shifts, holidays (or estimated “other days” off work as is customary for the Company). The areas will be evaluated both individually and holistically.

Reference: PWS 5.2.1, 5.2.4, 6.3, 6.4, PWS Attachment 1

3.6 Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation

The Small Business Participation requirement is met and considered acceptable when the Offeror provides a sound approach of at least 8% of the total contract value to the utilization of small businesses, as documented in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). The approach must satisfy the information required by paragraph 5.8, Section L, and commitment to the utilization of small business of at least 8%. If information is missing or does not meet the 8% goal, Subfactor 4 will be rated as unacceptable.

4.0 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Description: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements to successfully install BU 7.0/8.1 at the steady state of 120 days and maintain/troubleshoot the various issues that arise on the C-130J aircraft while grounded for over 30 days.

4.1 Confidence Assessment

Under the Past Performance Factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating represents the evaluation of an Offeror’s past work record to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs. The Past Performance evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror’s recent, relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance quality applicable to the Technical Subfactors. The resulting Performance Confidence Assessment rating assessed for the Offeror will be made at the Factor level.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings described in the table below.

TABLE 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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 an 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.

4.2 Evaluation Process

The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of the Offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, CPARS (https://cpars.gov/), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and commercial sources. More recent and relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings than less recent or relevant efforts.

Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems, and institutionalized this process improvement to prevent future recurrence, will be evaluated.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

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:

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); and interviews/questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, DCMA, and commercial sources.

4.3 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 at least six months of performance and either be active or have been completed within five years preceding the date of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.4 Relevance Assessment

The Government will conduct an assessment of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Subfactors. The Government will assess the relevancy of past work and its relationship to 1) the size and complexity of the modification/maintenance actions and 2) the type of large aircraft modified or maintained. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Subfactors;

however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered.

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. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including significant subcontractors. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 4 – Relevancy Ratings

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.

4.5 Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the Offeror performed on the contracts). For each recent and relevant past performance effort reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed according to the quality ratings in Table 5. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. Past performance efforts with a relevancy rating of “not relevant” will not be assessed for quality.

The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. In making the quality assessment, the Government will review CPARs, as well as other relevant information available to the Government (e.g., interviews, databases, DCMA, etc). CPARs will be considered equally and will be evaluated holistically.

Where relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. 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. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing past efforts:

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.

TABLE 5 – Quality Assessment Ratings

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating (Table 3).

5.0 FACTOR 3: PRICE FACTOR

Description: Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the PCO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government will not conduct a price realism analysis for this source selection.

5.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

5.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition. For additional information see FAR 15.404-1.

5.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. An offer may be rejected if the PCO determines a lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP calculation will be shielded from Offerors. The TEP will be used for price evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise those options.

Offerors should follow the instructions in the TEP spreadsheet for inputting prices in each tab.

Reference Attachment 3, Pricing Matrix. The Pricing Matrix will become an attachment (Attachment 10) to the PWS upon contract award.

The TEP is comprised of the following elements:

• Installations Quantity/Bands: The Pricing Matrix consist of two templates per C-130J variant: one for the first two installations of each aircraft variant and one for the possible yearly installations consistent with the Planned Aircraft Inductions Per Year, Reference PWS Attachment 1. There are a total of six (6) templates.

• Labor Categories: The Pricing Matrix consists of Government assumed labor categories and the Offeror will be responsible for populating their associated, fully burdened, labor rate to support Over & Above activity.

3.6 Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation