DRAFT EPASS EB FOPR 79 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Engineering, Professional, and Administrative Support Services (EPASS)

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

EPASS FOPR #79

ATTACHMENT 05

1 Task Order Selection

1.1 Basis for Task Order Award

This acquisition will utilize a fair opportunity selection process as set forth in Paragraphs 2 and 3 below. Selection will be made in accordance with (IAW) the terms and conditions of the General Services Administration (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services Plus (OASIS+) Small Business (SB) Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (MAC IDIQ) Contract, and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.505 as supplemented. The FAR and its supplements are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov.

The cost proposal will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness and balance IAW Section 3.3 of this document. A task order under the GSA OASIS+ SB IDIQ may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR subpart 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation) and whose proposal is evaluated and determined to be the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) with a Realistic and Reasonable Price (RRP).

The evaluation criteria maximize the objectivity of determining the HTRO. The Government finds that an individual Offeror with prior performance history in the evaluation criteria listed in the Self-Scoring Matrix (FOPR Attachment 11) presents a lower risk of unsuccessful performance.

Likewise, the Government finds that an individual Offeror with little prior performance history in the qualification criteria listed presents a higher risk of unsuccessful performance.

1.2 Ties and Tiebreakers

In the event of a tie for highest technical score after the Offerors’ self-scores are evaluated and validated by the Government, the following tiebreakers will be used in the following order:

1.2.1 Tiebreaker 1

(3.2.1.1) Highest validated combined percentage for Exceptional and Very Good CPAR ratings.

1.2.2 Tiebreaker 2

(3.2.1.6) Greatest number of validated work samples with Armament Weapon System Support.

1.2.3 Tiebreaker 3

(3.2.1.8) Greatest number of validated personnel providing engineering support across all work samples.

1.2.4 Tiebreaker Determination

The Offeror with the highest score in the first tiebreaker will be considered the HTRO and will be evaluated for RRP. If the tied Offerors score the same for the first tiebreaker, the evaluation will move to the second tiebreaker and so on.

If all tiebreakers are evaluated at maximum scores, the Government will validate the claimed maximum count to determine maximum scores in the same order as the tiebreakers listed above.

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

Offerors can enter information greater than the maximum counts in the “Self-Score Sheet” tab of the Self-Scoring Matrix.

1.3 Interchanges

Offerors should propose their optimal work samples to this requirement. The Government intends to make a selection without interchanges. Should interchanges be conducted, Offeror responses to interchange notices will be considered in making the task order selection decision. The Government may conduct interchanges either orally or in writing, and may conduct interchanges with none, some, or all Offerors. Reference the Instructions to Offerors (ITO), Attachment 03, for additional instructions on conducting interchanges.

IMPORTANT: The Government reserves the right to contact the Prime Offeror or any Team Members/Subcontractors/Interdivisional Transfers (IDTs) to substantiate, understand, or clarify any of the evidence provided.

1.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements such as terms and conditions and technical requirements in addition to those identified as evaluation criteria. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. The Government's expressed requirements for this effort are the hours and labor categories identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Level of Effort (LOE) matrix.

2 Evaluation Methodology/Factors

The following evaluation factors and self-score point system will be used to evaluate each proposal. The United States Government Task Order Technical Evaluation Team (USG Tech Team) will order the proposals based on initial self-scoring then begin validation of the highest proposed self-score. If data supporting the self-score is not substantiated and the self-score of another proposal displaces the previous highest self-scored proposal, the USG Tech Team will begin the validation process with the next highest self-scored proposal. The proposal with the highest validated score will move to the cost/price evaluation phase. Award will be made to an Offeror if its proposal’s cost/price is found to be realistic, reasonable, and balanced.

Factor 1: Technical/General Factor 2: Cost/Price

3 Task Order Selection Process

This is a fair opportunity selection process that is neither trade-off nor lowest price technically acceptable. The Government will conduct this competition using the HTRO with a RRP methodology. Task order award will be made to a responsible Offeror that submits a proposal that satisfies the Government's expressed requirements for this effort, has the highest validated technical rating, and has a RRP.

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

Offerors will self-score under each evaluation criteria subfactor and provide evidence (i.e., body of facts, data, proof) to substantiate that score. The Government will validate the Offeror’s proposal with the highest self-score. The Offeror cannot score more than the maximum possible points for each evaluation criteria subfactor, unless a tiebreaker applies. Each evaluation criteria subfactor has a weighting factor to be applied against the Offeror’s self-score, as shown in the Self-Scoring Matrix (Attachment 11). This weighting is multiplied against the Offeror’s Self-Score and totaled as the Offeror’s Weighted Self-Score.

After a total has been determined and validated for the HTRO, the Offeror will move forward for further evaluation under Factor 2. If the Offeror’s cost/price is found to be realistic, reasonable, and balanced, award will be made to that Offeror. If the HTRO is determined to be either unrealistic, unreasonable, or unbalanced under Factor 2, the Offeror with the next-highest self-score will be validated under Factor 1. If the self-score is verified and the Offeror is the new HTRO, that Offeror will move forward for further evaluation under Factor 2. This process will repeat itself until an Offeror with the highest Government-validated self-score is deemed to have a realistic, reasonable, and balanced price.

There will be no trade-offs between cost/price and technical.

The Offeror shall select a maximum of five work samples to submit as substantiating evidence for the self-score point system. The scoring of each evaluation criteria subfactor shall come from the work samples submitted unless otherwise stated in the evaluation criteria subfactor.

An acceptable work sample is defined as either a contract, a single award IDIQ, or a single task order issued under a master IDIQ contract (reference FAR 16.501-1). A single award IDIQ to include all accompanying task orders will only count as one acceptable work sample. Single-award IDIQs are acceptable work samples only if the owning agency issues one annual CPAR on the IDIQ (as opposed to a CPAR on each individual task order under that IDIQ). An IDIQ contract by itself will not count as an acceptable work sample, unless it meets the qualifications of the single award IDIQ with only one annual CPAR.

When referring to work samples, the terms “contract” and “task order” are interchangeable with the term “contract” often used as the all-encompassing term.

3.1 Work Sample Composition

All work samples must meet these minimum qualifications. The individual evaluation criteria subfactors in Paragraphs 3.2.1 may add further restrictions in addition to these minimums:

1. Must be a contract with the United States Government.

2. The Offeror or team member’s work sample must have included at least six months of performance within the last five years as of the date of this FOPR release. Note: In order to ensure compliance with 13 CFR 125.8(e), Protégé partners of a Mentor-Protégé Joint- Venture agreement providing a work sample as the prime Offeror must have included at least three months of performance within the last seven years as of the date of this FOPR release.

3. Up to one work sample may be a fixed price contract type; the remaining work samples must be cost type contracts.

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

4. A copy of the most recent CPAR must be included for all work samples as an attachment to the Work Sample Cover Sheet (Attachment 12a).

a. In the event there is no fully completed CPAR for the contractor for a given work sample, the Offeror must submit a Prime Past Performance Rating Form (PPPRF) (Attachment 15a) in lieu of a CPAR. PPPRFs are used when the work sample contractor performed as the prime contractor. When used, the PPPRF must be signed by the cognizant GS-15/O-6 or equivalent.

b. The PPPRF must cover the most recent contractual period of work, must cover at least six months of performance, and must contain adjectival ratings in Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management categories to be acceptable (for a fixed price work sample, Cost Control is not applicable and will not be considered). The ratings must be applied in accordance with the definitions in FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1.

c. Adjectival ratings in PPPRFs shall not be included in the CPAR Subfactor scoring.

Offerors are entitled to submit prime work samples IAW 13 CFR 125.6 and will be evaluated accordingly; however, Offerors must also clearly identify similarly situated subcontract (first tier) circumstances.

If a contract to a joint venture is utilized as a work sample a copy of the joint venture agreement shall be provided with the work sample.

If the procuring Government agency has used one or more continuation contracts in accordance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 204.1601(c) and the applicable Procedures Guidance and Information (PGI), all of the continuation contracts will be considered as a single work sample, and all CPARs associated with the continuation contracts will be considered together in aggregate, as if assessing the performance of a single contract. Bridge contracts are not continuation contracts.

Unless specifically stated within an evaluation criteria subfactor’s specific restriction, each work sample category may be used and all work samples may be combined towards the Offeror’s total self-score within a given evaluation criteria subfactor, regardless of category.

A position may only count against one labor category subfactor within the Offeror’s Self Scoring Matrix. The Offeror’s substantiation must adequately show the position aligns to the labor category in the applicable evaluation criteria subfactor. For example, an aeromedical engineer position may perform duties including, but not limited to, engineering, logistics and program management.

However, if the preponderance of this position’s duties are engineering in nature, this position may only be counted as a single position - an engineer. Additionally, if two work samples for the same effort are used (e.g. an EPASS task order and any subsequent bridge contracts) a position may only be counted once. This applies to all work sample categories.

3.1.1 Work Sample Requirements for an Offer without Joint-Venture For all Prime Offerors that are not submitting an offer as a Joint-Venture, all work samples must fall into one of the following categories:

1. Category 1: Must have been performed by the Offeror.

Work Samples performed with the Offeror acting as the prime contractor.

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

2. Category 2: Work samples performed by a Team Member. A maximum of two Category 2 work samples may be used per Offeror.

Work samples in which the Team Member was acting as Prime contractor. For the work sample to qualify, the Team Member must be considered a Major Subcontractor to the Prime, as defined in ITO 13.2.2.1, Paragraph 2. Signed teaming agreements between the Prime Offeror and each Subcontractor team member shall be placed in Volume 1(b) if Category 2 work samples are to be used.

3.1.2 Work Sample Requirements for an Offer with Joint-Venture For all Prime Offerors that are submitting an offer as a Joint-Venture, all work samples must fall into one of the following categories. For Joint-Ventures, unless an exception below applies, a work sample must be provided from the Joint-Venture and each Partner of that Joint-Venture.

1. Category 1: Must have been performed by the Joint-Venture or a Partner of the Joint- Venture acting as prime. A Work Sample under this section must have either a Small Business Administration (SBA) Approved Mentor/Protégé Agreement or a Fully Executed Joint-Venture agreement for all other Joint-Ventures included in Volume I of the Proposal.

a. Work samples performed with the Joint-Venture acting as the prime contractor.

b. Work samples performed by a Partner of the Joint-Venture acting as the prime contractor.

i. For Mentor Protégé Joint-Ventures: Mentor member of the partnership, a minimum of six months of past performance in the last five years as of the date of this FOPR release is required to minimally qualify.

ii. For Mentor Protégé Joint-Ventures: Protégé member of the partnership, a minimum of three months of past performance in the last seven years as of the date of this FOPR release is required to minimally qualify.

Exception 1: A Joint-Venture work sample is not required. However, if a Joint-Venture work sample is not provided under Category 1A or 1B, the Joint-Venture must submit a Joint-Venture Qualifications and Experience Cover Sheet (Attachment 12c) which shall include all requested documentation so the Government may evaluate any Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) work done and qualifications of the Joint-Venture IAW 13 CFR 125.8(e) as well as substantiating documentation for Subfactor 3.2.1.2, Financial Stability. The Joint-Venture is only required to submit Attachment 12c if it has performed A&AS work (as defined in FAR 2.101) on a United States Government contract within the last five years from the date of this FOPR release. Data to support points claimed for the Financial Stability subfactor must be submitted regardless of whether this exception applies. Information submitted in Attachment 12c will not count towards a total points calculation, nor will it count against the number of work samples to be submitted. In the event a CPAR is not available, a PPPRF may be submitted (Offeror will use the same form and instructions as in Section 3.1). In the event a Joint-Venture Qualifications and Validation Cover Sheet is provided in lieu of a scored work sample, the provided CPAR/PPPRF information will not be included in the CPAR evaluation under Section

3.2.1.1. Failure to provide all data requested may result in disqualification from consideration for award.

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

Exception 2: For Mentor Protégé Joint-Ventures, a Protégé work sample is not required.

However, if no Protégé Partner work samples are provided under Category 1A or 1B, the Protégé Partner is required to submit a Protégé Qualifications and Experience Cover Sheet (Attachment 12b) which shall include all requested documentation so the Government may evaluate the work done and qualifications of the Protégé Partner IAW 13 CFR 125.8(e). The documentation submitted with Attachment 12b is not required to meet the same standards and minimum qualifications as work samples used for self-scoring purposes. Information submitted in Attachment 12b will not count towards a total points calculation, nor will it count against the number of work samples to be submitted. The Protégé Partner must demonstrate it has A&AS experience that meets the definition of A&AS as described in FAR 2.101. The A&AS experience must have been performed on a United States Government contract within the last seven years from the date of this FOPR release. In the event a CPAR is not available, a PPPRF may be submitted. In the event a Protégé Qualifications and Validation Cover Sheet is provided in lieu of a scored work sample, the provided CPAR/PPPRF information will not be included in the CPAR evaluation under Section 3.2.1.1. Failure to provide all data requested may result in disqualification from consideration for award.

2. Category 2: Work samples performed by a Team Member. A maximum of two Category 2 work samples may be used per Offeror.

Work samples in which the Team Member was acting as Prime contractor. For the work sample to qualify, the Team Member must be considered a Major Subcontractor to the Prime, as defined in ITO 13.2.2.1, Paragraph 2. Signed teaming agreements between the Prime Offeror and each Subcontractor team member shall be placed in Volume 1(b) if Category 2 work samples are to be used.

3.2 Factor 1: Technical/General

This factor evaluates the Prime Offeror’s self-score as proposed under each evaluation criteria subfactor of the Self-Scoring Matrix. These self-scores can be based on Prime Offeror and/or Team Member contracts which are submitted as work samples, unless otherwise specified. Note: Some categories may be for the Prime Offeror only, and some categories may be limited to a single work sample.

The USG Tech Team shall evaluate proposals and validate that the scores are accurate. The USG Tech Team reserves the right to contact the Government POCs identified in the proposal, the Prime Offeror or any Team Members, or any other resources deemed necessary for any or all evaluation criteria subfactor during validation of self-scores. However, the Offeror is reminded that, IAW ITO Section 1.3, the Government intends to award this task order based on the initial proposals as received, without interchanges.

The USG Tech Team will order the proposals based on the Offeror’s initial self-scoring and begin validation of the highest proposed self-score. If data on the Self-Scoring Matrix is not substantiated nor validated by the USG Tech Team, and the self-score of another Offeror’s proposal displaces the previous highest self-scored proposal, the USG Tech Team will begin the validation process of the next-highest self-scored proposal. The proposal with the highest validated score will move to the cost/price evaluation phase. Note: If a proposal fails RRP evaluation, the proposal with the

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79 next-highest technical score will move through the self-score validation phase and then the cost/price evaluation phase, as stated above.

IMPORTANT: Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single evaluation criteria subfactor, could result in the USG Tech Team determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated, thereby resulting in the proposal being determined unawardable. The next highest rated self-score would then be validated.

The USG Tech Team reserves the right to downward adjust any Offeror self-score if the evidence provided by the Offeror is inconsistent with the self-score, or if the evidence is insufficient for the USG Tech Team to validate the Offeror’s self-score. If the USG Tech Team cannot validate the Offeror’s self-score on an evaluation criteria subfactor based on the substantiating data provided, the USG Tech Team reserves the right to downward adjust the Offeror’s self-score, potentially all the way down to zero points awarded.

The Prime Offeror shall accurately rate itself (including any Subcontractor team members) and provide sufficient evidence (i.e., body of facts, data, or proof) which clearly substantiates the Offeror’s self-score.

IMPORTANT: The USG Tech Team will only adjust the Offeror’s self-score downward, not upward. For subfactors that attribute negative points, scoring matrix counts may be increased or decreased, but will only ever adjust the Offeror’s self-score downward.

3.2.1 Evaluation Criteria

Of the work sampled submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the below subfactors.

3.2.1.1 Subfactor 1: CPAR Ratings

Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the total percentage of CPAR categories that were rated “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, or “Unsatisfactory” for the CPAR categories of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management on all CPARs.

Offerors must provide all relevant fully completed CPARs to substantiate the self-score. A fully completed CPAR means that the Government is able to verify that a Government official has closed out the CPAR (e.g. Assessing Official, Reviewing Official, or Ombudsman). If the CPAR is closed out by the Assessing Official, Contractor concurrence is required. Without Contractor concurrence, the Government does not consider the CPAR to be closed. For CPARs where the contractor non-concurred, Reviewing Official close out is required. Offerors that fail to provide all relevant CPARs may be disqualified due to intentional withholding of required information.

If a work sample is based on a task order awarded under a single award IDIQ, and the associated CPAR is at the single award IDIQ level, the single award IDIQ CPAR may be used for that work sample.

Important: The USG Tech Team must be able to validate each CPAR rating for each performance period of the contract/task order that is submitted as a work sample. For example, if a single work sample is in the fifth year of performance at time of FOPR release, the Government will need to

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79 validate all CPARs from that work sample (i.e., the base year and three option years, for a total of four annual CPARs).

Restrictions Adjectival ratings provided via PPPRFs shall not be used for scoring in this subfactor. Team Member CPARs shall be submitted if a Team Member work sample has been used. Team Members may choose to submit their CPARs directly to the Government if there are concerns of proprietary information being exposed; however, all separately submitted information must be received by the FOPR deadline for receipt of proposals to be counted.

Maximum Count 100%

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to an Offeror’s officially documented past performance on the utilized work samples and adherence to contractual terms and conditions. It is important to the Government to understand the level of quality of the Offeror’s or Team Member’s performance on the provided work samples.

3.2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Financial Stability (Prime Only)

Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the percentage of cost of its proposed base year Period of Performance (PoP), to include proposed labor costs, Government provided travel and ODC values, and Contract Access Fee, where the Offeror either has the funding already available, or has a line of credit from a financial institution (Attachment 12) at the start of the base PoP. It is acceptable for the line of credit to be available contingent upon winning the task order as long as there is evidence. The Offeror shall round its self-score to the nearest tenth of a percent (e.g.

24.1%). Regardless of whether the Offeror is rating itself based on liquid assets or a line of credit, a signed letter from a financial institution is required to verify funds.

Restrictions Prime Only

Maximum Count With the base PoP of this task order being 12 months, the maximum points will be achieved if the Offeror has funding available for 25.0% of the base period cost, which covers the first three (3) months of performance.

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to workforce stability, specifically where the Offeror has the ability to pay its employees and subcontractor employees for approximately the first three (3) months of the PoP. This will reduce the risk if liquidation of payment is untimely from the Government, the invoice/payment process has initial errors, Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) is furloughed, etc.

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

3.2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Number of work samples with at least 2 geographically separated Government locations supported by at least 15 positions.

Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of work samples submitted that include at least four (4) geographically separated Government locations with at least one (1) position that’s primary workstation is that location. Geographically separated Government locations must be separated by at least 75 miles from the primary place of performance, as well as each other. The Offeror shall not include in its count the primary place of performance for the work sample, corporate headquarters, telework locations, Temporary Duty (TDY) locations, or alternate duty locations.

Restrictions

Maximum Count 5 work samples

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to understand the nuances of multiple and distinct geographical labor markets as well as manage a distributed workforce.

3.2.1.4 Subfactor 4: Number of work samples with SAP program support Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of work samples submitted with Special Access Program (SAP) program support. Samples should include, but not limited to, supporting Cage Code and supported government SAP security oversight POC.

Restrictions None

Maximum Count 5 work samples

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the ability of company leadership to understand unique DoD missions, statutes, and regulatory environment; and to understand support and manage Special Access Programs.

3.2.1.5 Subfactor 5: Number of work samples with SCI program support Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of work samples submitted with Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) program support. Samples should include, but not limited to, supporting Cage Code and a Government SCI security oversight POC.

Restrictions

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

None

Maximum Count 5 work samples

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the ability of company leadership to understand unique DoD missions, statutes, and regulatory environment; and to understand support and manage SCI Programs.

3.2.1.6 Subfactor 6: Number of work samples with Armament Support Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of work samples submitted with the primary purpose of providing Armament support. Armament support is defined by work performed related to acquisition support, development, or production of one or more of the following domains:

Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground, or Surface-to-Surface munitions; Seekers, Command/Control, Guidance/Navigation, Warheads, Power Generation, Datalinks, Electronic Safe and Arm Device (ESAD), Fuzes or Propulsion subsystems; Range Support, Aerial Targets, Electronic Warfare, Aircraft Safe Escape, Aircraft Guns/Launchers/Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE); Hypersonics, Advanced Penetrators, Directed Energy, or additive manufacturing;

Small Arms, Medium Caliber, or Large Caliber munitions..

Maximum Count 5 work samples

Restrictions None

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to previous performance of similar type work. The Government believes having successfully performed work that is similar in scope decreases future performance risk.

3.2.1.7 Subfactor 7: Greatest number of positions on a single work sample (Prime Only) Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the total number of filled positions at a single point in time on a single work sample. A single point in time is defined as a single billing month.

Hours or costs associated with each position shall be performed in the same billing month and be reported on single CDRL or invoice. Hours or costs retroactively billed for that billing month or in that billing month will not be counted. This can include positions performed by subcontractors in support of the work sample. Positions may be submitted as full or part-time IAW contractual requirements. Multiple positions filled by the same person shall only be counted once. The Offeror must show evidence that the claimed number of positions were filled, assigned to the contract, and performed work during the single point of time. An

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79 employee roster that was officially delivered to the Government client or an invoice that shows unique position ID numbers are two items that could substantiate the number of positions on contract.

Restrictions Single work sample Prime Only

Maximum Count 500 Positions

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to perform work of similar magnitude.

3.2.1.8 Subfactor 8: Number of personnel providing engineering support across all work samples

Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of personnel whose primary purpose is performing engineering support. Personnel included in this count must be clearly tied to the work sample and to an engineering support requirement. The Offeror must show evidence that the personnel included in the count have an engineering degree, the degree was obtained from an ABET accredited engineering program, and that the program was accredited at the time the degree was received.

Restrictions To be include in the count, personnel are required to have degrees from Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) engineering programs.

Maximum Count

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it shows an Offerors understanding and ability to hire highly qualified individuals to fill engineering requirements.

3.2.1.9 Subfactor 9: Number of Lines of Accounting on a single work sample (Prime Only) Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of Lines of Accounting (LOAs), on a single work sample submitted, in a contractually defined PoP (e.g. Base year, Option Year 1, etc.).

An LOA or Accounting Classification Reference Numbers (ACRN) appearing on multiple CLINs shall count only.

Restrictions Prime Only Single work sample

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

Single contractually defined PoP

Maximum Count

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to experience in managing multiple funding sources and is based off the historical funding structure of the Customer.

3.2.1.10 Subfactor 10: Number of security violations across all work samples

Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of confirmed and closed out security violations across all work samples submitted as of the FOPR release date. Security violations are defined in DoDM 5200.01 (Vol 3, Enclosure 6 para 1.a and Glossary definition “Violation”) and PWS Section 5.2.1.3.2 Violation.

Restrictions None

Maximum Count None Negative points are attributed to each violation.

Relevance The Government has determined this subfactor to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s understanding of security policies and regulations and the management of their personnel supporting defense work.

3.2.1.11 Subfactor 11: Number of work samples with foreign military sales support Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of work samples with direct foreign miliary sales (FMS) support. Direct FMS support is defined as support requiring the use of either FMS case or FMS administrative surcharge funding. Indirect FMS support, where personnel support the Gov, but are not required to bill FMS funding, shall not be included.

Restrictions DoD contracts

Maximum Count 5 work samples

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the ability to not only manage FMS support, but also understand the complexity of FMS funding.

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

3.2.1.12 Subfactor 12: Number of personnel transitioned within 30 days (Prime Only)

Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of personnel transitioned and/or hired within 30 days on a single work sample. If a single person filled multiple positions on a task order, that person may only be counted once. Within 30 days is defined as a single 30 consecutive calendar-day period. For example, 15 Apr 2024 to 14 May 2024 is 30 calendar days. Sole-source contract extensions and bridge contracts are not considered transitions. This may be difficult to substantiate with contract documentation or business systems printouts, so any Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) that are submitted shall clearly indicate the singular, consecutive 30 calendar-day period. This can include subcontractors performing in support of the work sample.

Restrictions Prime Only

Maximum Count

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the mitigation of transition risk of a similarly sized contract.

3.2.1.13 Subfactor 13: Most recent DCSA vulnerability assessment rating (Prime Only) Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on its most recent Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) (formerly Defense Security Service (DSS)) vulnerability assessment rating which must be within five (5) years of the FOPR release date. The applicable ratings are Superior, Commendable, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory. The Government recognizes that not all companies receive full DCSA assessments. If an assessment of Pass or Fail was received, a Pass rating shall be equivalent to Satisfactory and a Fail rating equivalent to Unsatisfactory. If no rating has been received within the five (5) years prior to the FOPR release date, the Offeror shall rate themselves as Unsatisfactory.

Restrictions Prime Only

Maximum Count Superior = 3 Commendable = 3 Satisfactory = 2 Marginal = 0 Unsatisfactory = 0

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror having off-site facilities cleared by DCSA for classified activity to provide A&AS

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79 support, such as in the event office space is not available on a supported Air Force facility for assurance and protection of U.S. critical assets and critical information.

3.2.1.14 Subfactor 14: Number of positions requiring a Top Secret clearance across all work samples

Definition The Offeror shall rate itself based on the total number of filled positions at a single point in time across all work samples requiring a Top Secret Clearance or equivalent clearance requiring a T5 investigation. A single point in time is defined as a single billing month. Hours or costs associated with each position shall be performed in the same billing month and be reported on single CDRL or invoice. Hours or costs retroactively billed for that billing month or in that billing month will not be counted. Positions may be submitted as full or part-time IAW contractual requirements. Multiple positions filled by the same person shall only be counted once.

Restrictions

Maximum Count

Relevance The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to manage a specialized work force.

3.2.2 Burden of Proof

The burden of proof for substantiating points in the Self-Scoring Matrix rests solely with the Offeror. The technical volume shall contain sufficient data to substantiate all of the points claimed in the Offeror’s Self-Scoring matrix. Failure to do so may result in the Government downward adjusting the self-score, potentially all the way down to zero points awarded.

3.3 Factor 2: Cost/Price

The USG Tech Team will order technical proposals from highest to lowest based on the Offeror’s self-score. The USG Tech Team will validate the HTRO’s self-score. If the initial HTRO remains the HTRO after Government validation of the self-score, the Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated as described below for realism, reasonableness, and balance. If the Offeror’s proposal is determined to be unrealistic, unreasonable, or unbalanced after the cost and price evaluation, the next HTRO will be validated by the Government. If the next HTRO remains the HTRO after Government validation of the self-score, that Offeror’s cost proposal will be evaluated as described below for realism, reasonableness, and balance. This process will continue until there is a validated HTRO with a proposed cost/price that is determined to be realistic, reasonable, and balanced after Most Probable Cost (MPC) adjustments.

The Offerors’ Cost and Price Proposal Volume(s) will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is realistic, reasonable, and balanced.

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

Unrealistically low proposals are defined as proposals that require an upward MPC adjustment greater than or equal to 10.00% in either Step 1 or Step 2 of the Cost Realism/Reasonableness Analysis (hereafter referred to as Analysis) described below.

See ITO Paragraph 13.2.3.1 for detailed information on direct and indirect rates.

While proposals requiring upward MPC adjustments greater than or equal to 10.00% of total proposed cost are determined to be unrealistic, proposals requiring less than a 10.00% upward MPC adjustment may still be considered unrealistic if the price is deemed to reflect a failure to comprehend the complexity of the contractual requirements or poses an unacceptable risk to contract performance.

Unrealistically low or unreasonably high proposals will be deemed ineligible for award.

3.3.1 Cost Realism/Reasonableness

The Government will perform an analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1 on the Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Level of Effort (CPFF LOE) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) of the Offeror with the highest validated technical score. The analysis will consider the extent to which proposed costs under the CPFF LOE CLIN(s) indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements and determine whether they reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements. The Government will use a two-step process for determining realism and reasonableness of the proposed costs.

3.3.1.1 Step 1

The Government will perform its analysis on the proposed individual direct labor rates located in the Uniform Pricing Template (UPT). The analysis will use an MPC for all labor categories provided in the UPT based upon a survey of available data which may include, but is not limited to: General Schedule (GS), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Economic Research Institute (ERI), Salary.com, in-house subject matter experts, and historical data to include historical actual costs and/or negotiated pricing, along with data from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).

The Government will take the proposed direct labor rates in the “LCATs (All) Eglin AFB” within the UPT and evaluate them for realism and reasonableness at a quantity of one hour. Individual rates understated or overstated by greater than or equal to 10.00% of the Government’s established benchmark rate will be further evaluated and could result in upward or downward adjustments to the Offeror’s evaluated price if the justification submitted in the Offeror’s basis of estimate is deemed insufficient. If the proposed rate is a blended rate as described in Paragraph 13.2.4.4 of the ITO, the adjustment, if necessary, will occur at the blended rate as proposed and not in the buildup of the blended rate.

The sum of all the proposed direct labor rates in the “LCATs (All) Eglin AFB” within the UPT will be compared to the sum of all the evaluated/adjusted direct labor rates that are a result of the cost realism/reasonableness analysis performed on the individual direct labor rates. The Government will calculate the difference between the sum total of all evaluated/adjusted direct labor rates and the sum total of all proposed direct labor rates. The Government will then divide this difference by the sum total of all proposed direct labor rates and multiply by 100 to calculate the percentage difference.

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

• If this percentage difference is greater than or equal to 10.00% (the sum of evaluated/adjusted labor rates is significantly greater than the sum of the proposed direct labor rates), the proposal is unrealistic and unawardable.

• If the percentage difference is less than or equal to -10.00 % (the sum of evaluated/adjusted labor rates is significantly less than the sum of the proposed direct labor rates), the proposal is unreasonable and unawardable.

If the Offeror’s cost proposal is not determined to be unrealistic or unreasonable after Step 1, the analysis will progress to Step 2.

3.3.1.2 Step 2

The Government will multiply the hours provided in the UPT against the proposed fully burdened rates (less fee) to calculate the total proposed cost for each CPFF LOE CLIN. The Government will multiply the same hours against the evaluated/adjusted fully burdened labor rates (less fee) to calculate the MPC for each CPFF LOE CLIN.

The Government will utilize the MPC for the CPFF LOE CLINs, not the Offeror’s total proposed cost, and will utilize the Offeror’s proposed fixed fee dollar amounts to calculate the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Specifically:

• The Government will calculate the labor portion of the TEP by summing all CPFF Labor CLINs evaluated at the MPC plus the proposed fixed fee amount;

• The Government will calculate the cost reimbursable travel/other direct cost portion of the TEP by summing all of the Government-established values in the UPT, and;

• The Government will calculate the cost reimbursable contract access fee portion of the TEP by multiplying the evaluated price of all CPFF Labor CLINs plus the cost reimbursable travel/other direct cost CLINs by the Government-established 0.1%.

The Government will utilize the Offeror’s Total Proposed Price (TPP) for comparison against the Offeror’s adjusted TEP. The Offeror’s TEP will account for any adjustments made to direct rates as a result of the Cost Realism/Reasonableness analysis. The Government will calculate the difference between the TEP and the TPP. The Government will then divide this difference by the TPP and multiply by 100 to calculate the percentage difference.

• If this percentage difference is greater than or equal to 10.00% (the TEP is significantly greater than the TPP), the proposal is unrealistic and unawardable.

• If the percentage difference is less than or equal to -10.00% (the TEP is significantly less than the TPP), the proposal is unreasonable and unawardable.

3.3.2 Price Reasonableness

Cost and price analysis will be conducted IAW FAR 15.404-1 in order to ensure a reasonable price has been proposed. If prices are found to be unreasonable, the Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable and therefore unawardable.

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #79

For a price to be considered 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 cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. For additional information on determining reasonableness, see FAR 31.201-3. IAW FAR 15.403-1(b), the Government may require submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to support the determination of a RRP.

3.3.3 Fee

A proposed fee rate shall not exceed 5.00%. Fee rates in excess of the not-to-exceed amount will not be considered fair and reasonable and the Offeror will not be eligible for award regardless of technical score.

3.3.4 Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine if they are unbalanced with respect to prices for separately priced line items.

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 cost or price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the Government determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

3.3.5 Evaluation of Options

All options under the task order, including FAR 52.217-8 will be evaluated. However, evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The additional six month period of performance under FAR 52.217-8 will be priced and evaluated at the Option Year (OY) 4 CLIN prices divided by two, as follows:

CLIN Name Base Yr OY 1 OY 2 OY 3 OY 4 FAR 52.217-8 X001 Labor $A $D $G $J $M $M x .5 X002 Travel $B $E $H $K $N $N x .5 X003 CAF $C $F $I $L $O $O x .5

If this clause is exercised, the rates for each labor category shall be equal to the rates within the period of performance at the time the clause is exercised.

3.3.6 Burden of Proof

The burden of proof for price reasonableness, cost realism, and balance rests solely with the Offeror. The Cost/Price Volume shall contain sufficient data to substantiate the reasonableness, realism, and balance of the Offeror’s proposal. See ITO Paragraph 13.2.3.1 for detailed information on direct and indirect rates.

3.2.2 Burden of Proof