Draft MSN-7 Section M Follow-On Final Version 18 Jun24.pdf

ATTACHMENT 5 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

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 Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. 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 Section L 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 that the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweights 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 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 any proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency. If a deficiency is not considered correctable, 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.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://www.acquisition.gov/

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 15.505. 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.

1.6. 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.

1.7. Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned. The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal.

1.8 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) 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: Program Management Subfactor 2: Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) Subfactor 3: Equipment Repair Subfactor 4: Program Transition

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance), is considered approximately equal to 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. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable in Table 2.2.1 below.

Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings, 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. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall Technical rating

The rating definitions for Subfactors 1 and 2 are as follows:

Table 2.2.1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Program Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Program Management approach.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L. 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 with little potential for disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance:

a. The Offeror’s organization approach must ensure the Offeror can sufficiently sustain the MSN-7 IAW PWS 2.1.

b. All offers (both other than small business and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of the proposed participation/commitment to use of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition. The Offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation Commitment Document must be successfully completed IAW Section L, Attachment 4.0. In addition, the Offeror’s proposed small business minimum quantitive requirement (MQR) must be 15% IAW PWS 2.9

c. The offeror’s DMSMS approach must ensure all requirement of the PWS 6.1 are met.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM)

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed PDM approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L. 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 with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a) The offeror’s approach must ensure the PDM requirements of PWS 5.4 are met.

b) The offeror’s approach must ensure system transportation requirement of PWS 5.4.1 are met.

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Equipment Repair

The Government will assess the Offeror’s Equipment Repair approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L. 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 with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a) An approach to repair individual MSN-7 equipment and parts during PDM and from the field to ensure requirements in PWS 5.6 are met.

2.2.4. Subfactor 4: Program Transition

The Government will assess the Offeror’s Program Transition approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L. 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 with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a) An approach to manage and accomplish transition, which ensures the Offeror will be fully operational by end of phase-in period IAW PWS 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 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

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 “Satisfactory 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

5.3.1 of the ITO. Section L, 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 AN/MSN-7 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining past performance:

1. Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Services

2. Technical Support

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 AN/MSN-7 CLS requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

1. Dollar value/Quantity of parts managed

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 AN/MSN-7 CLS 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 AN/MSN-7 CLS 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

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 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) balanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). 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 TEP of all Offerors, including option periods. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP. The TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 4). These calculations will include all evaluation periods: 12-month basic period, eight (8) one-year option periods, and one six (6) month option to extend services. The extension period is IAW FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. 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.

2.4.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for price reasonableness to include completeness. 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. To evaluate completeness, the Government will confirm all unit prices and rates in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 4) have a dollar amount or rate proposed as applicable. Offeror’s shall provide rationale if any proposed unit price or rate is entered as zero in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 4).

2.4.2. Balanced Pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for balanced pricing to include any price increases greater than 5 percent per performance period, as well as any price decreases from one performance period to the next. The Government will evaluate all 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 TEP, 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 that 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 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 may use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.4.4. Pricing Information Requirements/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, balanced, and realistic pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing and/or price realism. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified cost or price data as believed necessary to support or justify proposed pricing.

2.4.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 pricing instructions. The TEP calculation methodology is included in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 4) as a separate tab titled “Calculation Methodology.” Proposed pricing of the TEP will be evaluated in accordance with the following: The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the basic period (12-months), eight (8) one-year options, and a six (6) month Option to Extend Services.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six-month extension period is not to be considered part of the Option IX and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.

2.4.6. Rounding

All proposed dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest cent. All proposed labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest cent. Proposed percentages (material handling rate) shall be rounded to four places to the right of the decimal. For example, 10.50% would be reflected as 0.1050. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP.

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

2.4.7. Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques and Methods The Government will review the basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based. These methods should be consistent with the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement.

Any deviations shall be noted and reviewed. The summaries of the estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems will also be reviewed. The Government reserves the right to obtain information from the Contract Business Analysis Repository as considered necessary.

2.4.8. Past Experience Basis of Estimate

The relevance and application of the Offeror’s price estimates based on past experience will be reviewed by the Government.

2.4.9. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government will review the Price Volume for all Offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. This includes review of the areas of price reduction, such as profit, volume or location discounts, indirect rate reductions, and so forth. Also, the Offeror’s explanation of how such reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at performance risk will be evaluated.

2.4.10. Subcontractor Pricing

The Government will review the Price Volume regarding information pertaining to subcontractor pricing. The Offerors’ determination of fair and reasonable pricing as it relates to subcontractors will be reviewed. Evaluation of subcontractor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair and reasonable. However, subcontractor pricing per se will not be evaluated. The Government will review Offerors’ application of their (prime’s) indirect costs, including G&A, Cost of Money, and profit to subcontractor costs/pricing.

Proposed FFP pricing has associated risk to the Offeror – not the Government - with regard to adequately and sufficiently covering costs in contract out-years; this risk also applies to Offerors’ subcontractor pricing. Proposals shall be adequately and sufficiently priced to take into account future unknowns, such as fluctuations in contract out-year subcontractor pricing as well as potential changes in subcontractors.

2.4.11. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding all price assumptions, limitations, and/or qualifications utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand the Offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.12. Over and Above (O&A)/Ceiling Rates

The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to ensure the Offeror has indicated their understanding that proposed ceiling rates will apply to all out-years (periods of performance beyond the basic period) despite what current actuals are running at the time.

2.5.13. Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)

The Offeror’s proposal will be reviewed for compliance with SCLS. Compliance with the SCLS is the responsibility of the Offeror and subsequent contract awardee. In addition the Government will review and confirm the Offeror submitted a conformance table that cross references the Offeror’s proposed job categories/skill levels subject to the SCLS with the job categories/skill levels of the applicable Area Wage Determination (AWD). It should be noted that actual compliance of Offerors’ wage rate payments to employees with the SCLS and regional AWD as appropriate is not within the responsibility or purview of evaluators and shall not be reviewed. The Department of Labor (DoL) is assigned SCLS compliance responsibilities and shall be the Government Point of Contact in regard to any compliance questions or concerns.

2.4.14. Accounting System

The status of the offerors’ accounting system will be reviewed and verified by the Government. Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)/DCMA approval will be noted.

Explanation of any deviations from the Offeror’s accounting system or deficiencies will also be reviewed. If an Offeror does not currently have an adequate accounting system, the Government will confirm the Offeror provided a completed “Contractor Self Assertion - Pre-Award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist.”

An Offeror must have an adequate accounting system in order to be awardable.

2.4.15. Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will review and confirm submission of the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and DCMA offices responsible for administration of the Offeror’s Government contracts.

2.4.16. Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data, other than certified cost or pricing data, as believed necessary to support, justify, or clarify their proposed pricing.

All pricing information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.17. Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Material (GFP/GFE/GFM) The government will review all information provided in the price volume regarding the offeror’s compliance and understanding of Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Material.

2.4.18. Contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/Tooling/Material

(CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM)

The government will review all information provided in the price volume regarding compliance and understanding of contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/Material.

2.4.19. Submission of Attachment 4 – Pricing Matrix

The Government will confirm receipt of a complete, electronically-encoded Pricing Matrix in the required format, with all required unit prices/rates provided.