DRAFT_Section M C-130 H FPS_V4_.pdf

CUI//SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

Solicitation FAXXXX-27-XXXX XX April 2026 Section M: Attachment ##

C-130H Formation Positioning System (FPS)

Replacement

Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Mobility Directorate

C-130 Hercules Division

DRAFT Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

FAXXXX-27-X-XXXX

XX APRIL 2026

Prepared by:

Mobility Directorate

C-130 Legacy Avionics (AFLCMC/WLNM) 2590 Loop Road, Bldg 558

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

Table of Contents

1. GENERAL

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

1.2. Solicitation Requirements

1.3. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.4. Competitive Range Determination

1.5. Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

1.6. Negotiations

1.7. Correction Potential of Proposals

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

2.1. Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Factor 1: Technical Excellence

Table 1: Definitions of Combined Technical Acceptability/Risk Ratings Table 2: Definitions of Technical Risk Ratings

2.1.2. Assessing Strengths and Weaknesses

2.1.3. Factor 2: Past Performance

Table 3: Definitions of Performance Confidence

Table 4: Levels of Relevancy

Table 5: Levels of Quality

2.1.4. Factor 3: Price……………………………………………………………………….15

ACRONYM LIST

1. GENERAL

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This system will be acquired using a best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) 15.2, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), or R-DFARS Procedures, Guidance and Instructions, Subpart 215.2--Source Selection, and the R-DFARS PGI Source Selection Procedures 215.2.

These regulations are available electronically at the Federal Acquisition Regulations Site, https://www.acquisition.gov.

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

The Government may select for contract award the proposal determined to offer best overall value to the Government, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Excellence, Past Performance, and Price. The combined Technical Excellence and Past Performance factors are significantly more important than Price. The Technical Excellence factor is equal to the Past Performance factor. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the superior technical capability and/or the lower technical risk of the higher priced offer outweighs the price difference. While the Government source selection team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

For large businesses, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that satisfies RFO 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements is required to be submitted and approved by the Contracting Officer (CO) before a large business contractor can be deemed responsible IAW RFO Part 9, as supplemented. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall include the subcontracting goals expressed at the contract level as a percentage only of annual total obligated dollars for each of the following: small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women owned small business. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated on the Offeror’s approach to meeting each of its subcontracting goals.

https://www.acquisition.gov/

Only U.S. companies may be considered for award. A foreign-owned or foreign-influenced company that has been approved through the Defense Security Service (DSS) as a U.S.

subsidiary may also be considered as a U.S. prime on this program.

1.2. Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including technical and delivery requirements, terms and conditions and representations and certifications. 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.

1.3. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single contract with a base Period of Performance (PoP) and multiple Options for the entire C-130H FPS effort. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, program requirements, prices submitted, or the availability of funds.

1.4. Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. Any competitive range determination will be based on all evaluation criteria. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors that are not among the most highly rated based on their initial proposal evaluation results; after clarifications; or prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request (if one is used).

The range may also be further reduced for purposes of efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they will be notified by the PCO IAW RFO 15.206-1 and may request a debriefing IAW RFO 15.206-2.

1.5. Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to clarifications or competitive range determination without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors as defined in Section M, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP) or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the RFP, or in some other manner, do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the solicitation.

1.6. Negotiations

The Government reserves the right to award without negotiations; therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations if determined necessary and/or in the best interest of the Government. If negotiations occur, they will be conducted IAW RFO 15.204.

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

Exchanges with Offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute negotiations and the PCO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.7. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. When deemed in the best interest of the Government, if an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal with regard to its ability to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation. Further, the Government intends to award a contract to the Offeror proposing the most advantageous outcome to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described in 2.1 Factors & Subfactors below.

Only those technical proposals determined to be Outstanding, Good or Acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Offerors must have a Past Performance Confidence rating of Satisfactory or better to be considered for contract award.

2.1. Factors & Subfactors

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

• Factor 1: Technical Excellence o Subfactor 1 – Management Capability o Subfactor 2 – Systems Engineering

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price

In accordance with RFO 15.202, Technical and Past Performance are approximately equal in importance. In accordance with RFO 15.104-3(d), Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

2.1.1. Factor 1: Technical Excellence

The Technical Excellence evaluation is a combined Technical Acceptability/Risk Rating.

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals based on the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement and includes consideration of the strengths, uncertainties, and deficiencies found in the proposal.

The Offeror’s proposal shall address each of the Subfactors. Detailed instructions are included in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Subfactor, a rating as shown below in Table 1. A rating of Unacceptable in any subfactor will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable for the technical evaluation. For each Technical Excellence Subfactor, Offerors must meet each Measure of Merit (MoM), and have a risk rating of Moderate or Low, in order to be considered for award.

The following combined Technical Acceptability/Risk Rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technical capability and risk assessment of Subfactor 1, Management Capability, and Subfactor 2, Systems Engineering.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

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

Purple Good

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable

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

Table 1. Definitions of Combined Technical Acceptability/Risk Ratings Assessed for Subfactor 1 (Management Capability) and Subfactor 2 (Systems Engineering)

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

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

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

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

Moderate

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

High

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

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

Table 2. Definitions of Technical Risk Ratings Assessed for Subfactor 1 (Management Capability) and Subfactor 2 (Systems Engineering)

2.1.2. Assessing Strengths and Weaknesses

2.1.2.1. Strengths

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to assess one or more strengths to Offerors that exceed the requirement in the Management Capability (Subfactor 1) and Systems Engineering (Subfactor 2) Subfactors. In order to achieve a strength as defined below, the Offeror’s approach must address how it will benefit the Government. In addition, the Offeror shall provide additional PWS language or other contract documentation to capture the proposed strength in a contract requirement. This documentation shall be submitted with Volume II and will be incorporated into the PWS/Contract at award.

A strength is defined as an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified schedule performance or system capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance. Further, a significant strength is an aspect of the Offer’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified schedule performance or system capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

• Subfactor 1—Management Capability:

o If substantiated by the proposed technical approach, a strength may be assessed to an Offeror when an approach is presented that may result in improved planning and execution of the program schedule. An example of a Management Capability strength, among others, would be a proposed approach that accelerates delivery of FPS kits for installation.

o If substantiated by the proposed technical approach a significant strength may be assessed to an Offeror when a proposed approach is presented that has previously resulted in demonstrably improved planning and execution of the program schedule. An example of a Management Capability significant strength, among others, would be the citation of a previously employed approach that accelerated the planned delivery of fielded capability.

• Subfactor 2—Systems Engineering:

o If substantiated by the technical approach, a strength may be assessed to an

Offeror when an approach is presented that may improve schedule and performance for the program. An example of a Systems Engineering strength, among others, would be a proposed approach that accelerates successful completion of system test and evaluation.

o If substantiated by the proposed technical approach a significant strength may be assessed to an Offeror when an approach is presented that has previously resulted in demonstrably improved schedule and performance.

An example of a Systems Engineering significant strength, among others, would be the citation of a previously employed approach that accelerated the successful completion of system test and evaluation.

Note: The Offeror’s proposed plan and schedule for achieving development and delivery milestones will become contractually binding upon contract award.

2.1.2.2. Technical Excellence Subfactor Descriptions and Measures of Merit

The following evaluation subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

2.1.2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Management Capability

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides the following and the risk of unsuccessful performance is Moderate or Low.

• An adequate technical approach to building an executable plan, demonstrating the Offeror’s ability to develop a high-confidence Integrated Master Plan/Schedule (IMP/IMS).

• An adequate management strategy and technical approach, to include the Offeror’s approach to staffing, resource management, and project control/management, demonstrating the Offeror’s ability to execute the program in accordance with the proposed IMP/IMS.

2.1.2.2.1.1. Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD)

MoM#1-A: The Offeror’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the EMD tasks, events, resources, and durations required to accomplish the C-130H FPS EMD effort. The IMS includes a realistic estimate of the scope of effort required to complete EMD.

The Offeror’s justification for schedule durations are reasonable and support execution of the tasks. The IMS includes all technical and management reviews required in the Statement of Work (SOW)/Performance Work Statement

(PWS).

2.1.2.2.1.2. Production

MoM#1-B: The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound understanding of the necessary production planning, resources and schedule durations required to accomplish the C-130H FPS kit procurement, aircraft induction, and kit installation time for each production lot. The Offeror’s IMS demonstrates the capacity to accomplish the necessary installations using Contractor Field Teams (CTF) at the various aircraft locations. The Offeror’s justification for schedule durations are reasonable and support execution of the schedule.

MoM#1-C: The offeror’s Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) assessment process as described in the proposal is consistent with the MRL Deskbook. The Offeror's proposal identifies the elements being assessed for MRLs. For elements that are below the target MRL, the proposal describes an achievable plan to meet the target MRL.

2.1.2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Systems Engineering

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides the following and the risk of unsuccessful performance is Moderate or Low:

• An adequate systems engineering approach to develop a system that meets all system requirements, enables formation missions in an operational environment, and is ready for transition to production.

2.1.2.2.2.1. Technical Solution

MoM#2-A: The Offeror’s System Description includes system architecture, components, and interfaces to meet all Compatibility, Functional, Architecture, Interface, and Performance requirements in the C-130H FPS System Requirements Document (SRD).

MoM#2-B: The Offeror’s System Integration Description clearly describes the approach to ensure end-to-end system performance, interoperability with C- 130J’s, and integration with C-130H legacy avionics systems.

2.1.2.2.2.2. System Maturity

MoM#2-C: The Offeror’s System Maturity Description clearly describes the current status of system hardware and software development and a time efficient approach to achieving the required system maturity. The Offeror's proposal identifies the system’s current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined in the Department of Defense (DoD) Technology Readiness Assessment Guidebook and the plan to achieve a TRL of 9.

2.1.2.2.2.3. Test and Airworthiness

MoM#2-D: The Offeror’s Test Strategy demonstrates a pragmatic approach to completing Test & Evaluation (T&E) of the C-130H FPS. The Offeror’s Test Strategy addresses all required events, activities, and criteria required for successful completion of T&E. The Test Strategy demonstrates sufficient durations and resources for all required T&E events.

MoM#2-E: The Offeror’s Airworthiness Plan demonstrates a pragmatic approach to achieving military airworthiness certification of the C-130H FPS.

The Offeror’s Airworthiness Plan addresses all required airworthiness tasks, events, testing, and development of required compliance artifacts.

2.1.3. Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements to successfully design, manufacture, and field the C- 130H FPS IAW proposed schedule, in order to satisfy formation-flying mission needs.

2.1.3.1. Confidence Assessment

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

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings described in Table 3 (below) for Factor 1, Technical Excellence.

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

Table 3. Definitions of Performance Confidence Ratings Assessed for Past Performance of each Technical Excellence Subfactors:

Subfactor 1, Management Capabilities; and Subfactor 2, Systems Engineering

2.1.3.2. Evaluation Process

The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of the Offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, CPARS (https://cpars.gov/), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and commercial sources. More recent and relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings than less recent or relevant efforts.

Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems, and institutionalized this process improvement to prevent future recurrence, will be evaluated. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

2.1.3.3. Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have at least six months of performance and either be active or have been completed within five years preceding the date of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.1.3.4. Relevance Assessment

The Government will conduct an assessment of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical Subfactors; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. Consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including significant subcontractors. The Government will use the relevancy definitions detailed in Table 4 (below) when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 4. Levels of Relevancy Assessed for Offeror’s recent effort(s) as key aspect of Past Performance evaluation

2.1.2.5. Quality Assessment

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

The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. In making the quality assessment, the Government will review Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and/or Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs), as well as other relevant information available to the Government (e.g., interviews). PPQs and CPARs will be considered equally and will be evaluated holistically.

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

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than Satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color Description

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

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

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

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

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

Table 5. Levels of Quality Assessed for Offeror’s recent, relevant effort(s) as key aspect of Past Performance evaluation

2.1.4. Factor 3: Price

The Government will evaluate the Price proposal for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness

(3) unbalanced pricing and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Additionally, Cost Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) will be analyzed using cost realism to ensure proposed costs are realistic for the work, reflect a clear understanding of requirements, and align with the technical proposal. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.1.4.1. Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation. If not complete and in compliance, the Offeror’s proposal may be ineligible for award.

2.1.4.2. Reasonableness

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

2.1.4.3. Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing IAW RFO 15.404-6.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, a proposed line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. An offer may be rejected if the PCO determines a lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.1.4.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be used for price evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise those options. Offerors should follow the instructions in the TEP spreadsheet for inputting prices in each tab. Reference Attachment #, Pricing Matrix. The Pricing Matrix will become an attachment (Attachment ##) to the PWS upon contract award.

• The TEP is comprised of the following elements:

o Installations Quantity/Bands: The Pricing Matrix consists of variable quantities in each Option Year for Lots 1-4 o Labor Categories: The Pricing Matrix consists of Government assumed labor categories and the Offeror will be responsible for populating their associated, fully burdened, labor rate to support Over & Above activity.

ACRONYM LIST

DAFFARS Department of Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

CLIN Contract Line Item Number DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency DoD Department of Defense EMD Engineering and Manufacturing Development ENs Evaluation Notices eSRS Electronic Subcontract Reporting System FAPIIS Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System FPR Final Proposal Revision FPS Formation Positioning System IAW In Accordance With IMP Integrated Master Plan IMS Integrated Master Schedule MoM Measure of Merit MRL Manufacturing Readiness Level PoP Period of Performance R-DFARS Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO)

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) RFO Revolutionary FAR Overhaul SKE Station Keeping Equipment SOW Statement of Work SRD System Requirements Document SSA Source Selection Authority SSEB Source Selection Evaluation Board T&E Test and Evaluation TEP Total Evaluated Price