DRAFT SECTION M ASCEND.pdf

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize a Certification Gate and the Tradeoff Source Selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous 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 technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business Utilization, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

B. Facility Clearance Certification Gate: The Government will review the offeror’s initial proposal for documentation certifying the offeror possesses the necessary facility clearances to perform the effort of this acquisition in a facility that meets the minimum classified facility specification requirements below. Any proposal received that does not meet this condition will be returned to the offeror without any further evaluation and is considered ineligible for award.

Minimum Classified Facility Specification Requirements:

The contractor shall be able to meet the following minimum requirements for classified space available to support ADCP critical mission functions. These minimum requirements are to support Task Order 0001

-Minimum number of seats: 45 (40 seats to be staffed eight (8) hours per day from 0800 - 1600 EST)

-Minimum number of seats supporting 24/7/365 operations: 5 (this number is included in the minimum number of seats quantity of 45)

-Minimum network connectivity available at each seat: Non-classified Internet Protocol Router/Secret Internet Protocol Router (NIPRNet/SIPRNet) with access to JWICS Voice Over IP (VOIP) Secure Voice Over IP (SVOIP)

-Minimum Facility Classification Level: Final Top Secret (TS) NOTE: The offeror shall provide the respective National Industrial Security System (NISS) report demonstrating a TS FCL is currently in place)

-Additional Minimum Requirements: Existing Special Access Program (SAP) certified physical space capable of supporting IT operations

Secret open storage or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) facilities with NIPR/SIPR and JWICS capabilities

NOTE: The minimum number of seats do not all need to be available at one location.

The offeror shall have Full Operations Control (FOC) over these minimum requirements at time of proposal submittal. The offeror shall provide evidence of FOC by supplying a fully executed affidavit attesting to these minimum requirements being present at time of proposal submittal

C. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Subfactors: Following verification of a proposal meeting the minimum requirements of the gate criteria, a detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Technical (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings)

Subfactor One: Overall Technical Approach (Including Mission Essential Service Plan)

Subfactor Two: Transition Plan (Day 1 Ops)

Subfactor Three: Portability/Intellectual Property Plan

Factor II. Past Performance

Factor III. Small Business Participation Submission

Factor IV. Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, technical, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, is the most important followed by past performance and then cost/price. Technical, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, and past performance when combined are significantly more important than cost/price. Within Factor I, subfactors 1 is of most importance, subfactor 2 and 3 are of equal importance.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Professional Employee Compensation Plan: The professional employee compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this professional employee compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

2. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents (Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), Purchase Description (PD), etc.) the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the IDIQ PWS and Task Order 0001 PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

Subfactor One - Technical Approach: This subfactor is met when the offeror adequately identifies their enterprise level approach to managing the ADCP platform to include, but not limited to, DevSecOps, maintenance, deployment, upgrades, cyber security/surety, and any other factors relevant to maintaining scalability, reliability, and resiliency of the platform. The offeror should ensure their proposal identifies their approach to building a cloud infrastructure that is repeatable, scalable, and usable across a multi cloud infrastructure. The approach should address how the infrastructure will be resilient and reliable. The approach should address replicating the infrastructure in a DDIL environment.

The proposal should include a clear and concise methodology for management of the ADCP platform and adequate documentation and diagrams to show the offerors thought process in building, delivering, scaling, and maintaining a platform that meets the requirements of the PWS. The subfactor includes identification of risks associated with the proposed approach, plans to mitigate the identified risks, and any assumptions made in developing their technical approach.

The technical approach must also include a plan to provide services identified as mission essential in a crisis situation. Mission essential services will be identified at the Task Order level. Services provided under Task Order 0001 are considered mission essential and should specifically be addressed in the submitted plan.

Subfactor Two – Transition Plan (Day 1 Operations): This subfactor is met when the offeror adequately addresses Phase In and Phase Out requirements identified in the PWS. The plan should address risks and plans to mitigate potential risks. An adequate plan will go into details beyond reiterating the requirements of the PWS and explain a detailed approach to meet the requirements based on their proposed technical approach. The offeror shall provide a detailed transition plan with milestones identifying key activities to be successfully completed to achieve full operational support of the ADCP platform.

Specifically, the offeror shall address:

a. A staffing plan that clearly and concisely outlines the offeror’s strategy for hiring qualified personnel in support of the Government’s requirement, timeline to achieve full staffing levels of cleared personnel, and the offeror’s ability to accommodate surge support requirements during critical operations. Processes for acquiring personnel security clearance documentation, personnel qualification documentation, completion of all necessary identification badges, Common Access Cards, all network access, and base access.

b. Realistic, structured schedule for accomplishing all on-ramp transition processes within 60 calendar days of contract award .

c. Identification of risks associated with the defined contract transitions and providing a sound and comprehensive risk management strategy to successfully mitigate risks identified by the offeror for each transition.

d. Sample Mission Essential Service Plan as identified in paragraph 2 below.

Subfactor Three: Intellectual Property - This subfactor is met when an offeror identifies a specific plan to meet the Government’s desired end state that any software and/or applications developed in the course of this contract by the contractor be provided with the necessary data rights which allows the Government to maintain and sustain the platform utilizing competitive acquisition processes. The Government desires license rights sufficient to be able to use and disclose technical data and software elements developed, with third parties external to the Government for sustainment, maintenance, and next generation application development.

Specifically, a sufficient proposal would include identification of any potential intellectual property (IP) restrictions associated with their technical approach and any restrictions which would prevent and/or inhibit the Government’s ability to meet their desired end state identified above for the ADCP platform, to include any software and/or applications developed during the course of this contract by the offeror.

2. Mission Essential Services: IAW DFARS 237.7602 services provided under this requirement may be designated as mission essential services. The applicable service functions that are designated as mission essential will be identified on the Service Delivery Summary provided at the Task Order level. Contractors must provide a written plan that will be activated in periods of crisis in order to ensure continuity of operations for the mission essential services.

For the purposes of this acquisition the requirements identified in the Task Order 0001 PWS are considered mission essential and must be addressed in the submitted plan

3. Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Technical Ratings:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will perform critical milestone events of the proposed technical approach or will perform more than 10% of the Task Order 0001 effort. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

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

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

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

-The Government shall aggregate the total deliverables and performance objectives for each order to evaluate the capabilities delivered for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Capabilities, and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

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

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

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

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ critical subcontractor’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, if applicable award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

(Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

E. Small Business Participation Factor

All offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of proposed participation/commitment to use of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein. The Government will evaluate the following to determine if the offeror met or exceeded the requirements.

1. The extent to which firms as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals

2. The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

3. Identification of the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

4. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements). The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

5. The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed quantitative participation

6. Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

7. Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-9 (DEVIATION 2016- O0009) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (when applicable) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine which offeror proposes the best value in terms of Small Business Participation. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract.

The associated goals in paragraph 4. above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission will be evaluated against the Minimum Quantitative Requirements (MQR). The offeror must propose to at least the MQRs to be considered acceptable for this evaluation factor.

Business Size Sub Small Business 30.0% Small Disadvantaged Business

(SDB)

5.0%

Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

3.0%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

5.0%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

5.0%

Veteran-Owned Small Business

(VOSB)

5.0%

2. Small Business Utilization Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Utilization factor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

F. Cost/Price Factor

1. Reasonableness IAW FAR 31.201-3, a cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. In addition, the Government will assess the reasonableness of the fully burdened T&M labor hour rates. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable, and therefore not awardable, if prices are found to not be reasonable.

2. Price/Cost Realism The CPFF CLINs will be evaluated at the GEMPC plus the proposed fixed fee amount.

3. Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine if they are unbalanced with respect to prices for separately priced line items despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the T&M fully burdened labor rates of one or more labor categories is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost and 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)).

4. Government-Owned Facilities, Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Information/Supplies/Services (GFE/P/I/S/S), and Government Support The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of Government-Owned Facilities, GFE/P/I/S/S, and Government Support that is not included in the solicitation. This will be accomplished by assessing the equivalent value (see FAR 45.2) of those resources as part of the offer. Any adjustments made resulting in the use of Government-Owned Facilities, GFE/P/I/S/S, and Government Support will be captured in the TEP. The Government may reject any offeror proposed Government-Owned Facilities, GFE/P/I/S/S, and Government Support that is evaluated as unavailable. If an offeror’s proposal relies on Government-Owned Facilities, GFE/P/I/S/S, and Government Support, beyond that is provided in the solicitation, that is unavailable, the proposal may be evaluated as deficient.

5. Evaluation of Compensation Plan for Professional Employees The Government will evaluate the realism of the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. For the plan to be realistic, it must reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement. If the Government determines a proposed compensation plan is unrealistic, the Government may rate the offeror’s quote as “Unrealistic” and it may be rejected on that basis.

6. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for award purposes will be the sum of the total prices proposed for the Time and Material (T&M) CLINs (including the Government provided Material value) and Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs, including all option periods. These prices will be the summation of proposed labor, ODC/Travel, and material for each of these time periods. For labor, the Base Year and Option Year CLINs will be evaluated using predetermined labor hours per labor category as directed by the Government. The offeror shall input its best Government Site labor rates for the labor categories that have labor hours prescribed for actual task performance. For labor categories where only 1 labor hour is provided, the offeror shall input its highest fully burdened labor rate provided by either the Prime, a subcontractor or an IDT.

For each labor category, the labor prices will be summed together to establish the labor TEP for each year. ODC/Travel costs will be analyzed to ensure that they are reasonable for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performances and materials described in the offeror's technical proposal.

7. Evaluation of Options All options under the contract will be evaluated as indicated above; however, evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. (NOTE: All options shall be priced.) In accordance with FAR 52.217-8 Option To Extend Services, the rates proposed for each Option Period may be utilized for up to an additional six months if the Option to Extend the Term of the Contract is exercised.