SEMATS_2_Section_M_19_Oct_2015.pdf

PART IV REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M FA2486-15-R-0030

Page M - 1

SEEK EAGLE Modeling Analysis, and Tools Support

A. NOTICE: The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:

1. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

52.217-05 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

B. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Capability and Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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 and subfactors 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 technical, overall business approach, and past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference. 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 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.

This is a competitive best value source selection using the Tradeoff Process set forth in FAR

15.101-1. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

There are three evaluation factors:

Factor I - Technical Capability and Risk

a. Sub Factor 1: Aircraft-Stores Compatibility Engineering Analysis and Support

b. Sub Factor 2: Technical Workforce Management

c. Sub Factor 3: Organizational Conflict of Interest

d. Sub Factor 4: Program Management

Page M - 2

Factor II - Past Performance

Factor III - Cost/Price

The relative importance of each factor is as follows: Technical Capability and Risk, Past

Performance, and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance, with Factor I

(Technical) being most important (all Sub Factors in Factor I are of equal importance). Factor II

(Past Performance) being next in importance and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) being last in importance.

Even though cost is least important, it is still significant.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract;

however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Clarifications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions.

1.4 Discussions with Offerors

The Government reserves the right to award a contract based only on initial proposals without establishing a competitive range and conducting discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to conduct discussions, the

Government will establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with all offerors included in the competitive range. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal

Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

2.0. FACTOR I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The Government will evaluate Volume I of the Offeror’s proposal to determine a technical rating in accordance with the chart below. The Government will assign the rating that corresponds to the description that best describes the Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s proposal. The

Government will assign ratings at the subfactor level for technical capability. The Government will not combine the five subfactors to establish a separate, overarching evaluation rating for

Factor 1 Technical Capability and Risk.

TABLE 2.1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Page M - 3

The Government will utilize the following definitions in Table 2.2 with regard to Table 2.1.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

TABLE 2.2 – Strengths and Weaknesses

Term Description

Strength An element of the proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

This element may increase the likelihood of successful contractor performance by having, for instance, a positive impact on cost, customer service, schedule, accounting procedure, or improved efficiency.

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

Significant

Weakness

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

Deficiency A shortcoming in one or more of the Offeror’s system(s) that materially affects the ability of officials of the Department of

Defense to rely upon information produced by the system that is needed for management purposes.

Page M - 4

2.1 Technical Capability Measures of Merit

The following is provided to offerors to aid in the development of proposals. The measures of merit establish a baseline of acceptability that is required to meet the minimum requirements of this solicitation. Overall, offerors shall satisfactorily address performance requirements of the

PWS, including key attributes for developing, sustaining, and using current and next generation tools; planning and managing engineering projects; aircraft/store compatibility engineering and analysis; development, maintenance, and sustainment of mission planning software; generating and managing technical data; and managing a complex engineering IT environment. The

Government's evaluation will include assessing the offeror's approach for meeting the PWS requirements reflected in Section L, Attachment 7.

Technical Capability is made up of five (5) subfactors. Each subfactor is comprised of those elements listed in Section L.

2.1.1 Sub Factor 1: Aircraft-Stores Compatibility Engineering Analysis and Support

Offeror’s proposal will demonstrate their sound understanding of managing a technical complex, information-focused engineering, analysis, advanced computing, and modeling and simulation environment.

2.1.1.1 Manage a Complex Engineering Information Technology (IT) Environment

Offeror’s proposal presents an approach for managing a complex engineering IT environment that is sound and addresses, at minimum, the following areas: cybersecurity protection measures, network administration and management, and the maintenance and sustainment of a high data volume, high end computational hardware and software infrastructure.

2.1.1.2 Software Development, Maintenance, and Sustainment

Offeror’s proposal presents an approach for developing, maintaining, and sustaining software that is sound and addresses, at minimum, their methods and practices for establishing repeatable processes and deploying a managed environment for developing, maintaining, and sustaining software products.

2.1.1.3 Engineering Process for Integrating or Certifying Weapons

Offeror’s proposal presents an approach that is sound and demonstrates a clear understanding of the engineering process required to integrate and certify existing/new weapons on existing/new modern high performance aircraft. The approach addresses, at a minimum, the following areas:

compatibility analyses for fit, function, electromagnetic compatibility, electromagnetic interference, flutter, loads, stability and control, and separation; stores loading procedures;

ground and wind tunnel tests; and flight tests.

2.1.1.4 Engineering Analysis Support

Offeror’s proposal presents an approach for providing engineering analysis support that is sound and addresses, at minimum, those functions and environments they employ that are essential to

Page M - 5 conducting aerodynamic, structures and loads, vibrations, and electromagnetic analysis. These engineering analyses include the use of modeling and simulation and specific software application tools to analyze, investigate, and resolve engineering problems.

2.1.1.5 Planning, Managing and Executing Engineering Projects

Offeror’s proposal presents an approach to planning, managing, and executing engineering projects that is sound and addresses, at minimum, their proven practices for effective project portfolio management essential to meeting cost, schedule, and performance goals. The approach addresses the actions necessary for effectively gathering, analyzing and preparing cost, schedule, and performance data to communicate project status information to stakeholders at various levels.

2.1.2 Sub Factor 2: Technical Workforce Management

Offeror’s proposal will demonstrate their ability to assemble and manage a qualified and capable workforce able to successfully execute the requirements in the SEMATS 2 PWS. Offeror’s proposal will demonstrate their ability to seamlessly transition resources and personnel onto this contract and to ensure full continuity of mission support in accordance with Task Order 0001.

2.1.2.1 Recruiting, Hiring, and Retaining Technically Proficient Workforce

Offeror’s proposal provides a sound approach to successfully recruit, train, qualify, and certify employees in a timely manner. The approach addresses the actions necessary to ensure qualified and experienced employees can be recruited, hired, and retained.

2.1.2.2 Response to Surge Requests

Offeror’s proposal presents a sound approach and reasonable methodology for responding to changing, unscheduled, and/or urgent surge requirements to meet unforeseen increases in the number and/or urgency of mission requirements.

2.1.2.3 Response to Personnel Vacancy

Offeror’s proposal provides a sound approach for filling or backfilling personnel vacancies to augment its highly technical workforce. The approach addresses the actions necessary to ensure qualified and experienced employees are in place to sustain the level of effort necessary for successful execution of PWS requirements.

2.1.2.4 Professional Compensation Plan, FAR 52.222-46.

Offeror’s proposal includes a professional compensation plan that complies with the provisions of FAR 52.222.46. The plan addresses, at a minimum, commitment to professional employee salaries and fringe benefits that are commensurate with the work to be performed, market conditions and geographical factors, rates or salary ranges that account for the differences in progressive skill requirements or in job complexity and difficulty. Supporting information used to develop the total compensation structure is included in the proposal.

2.1.2.5 Organizing and Staffing Management Team

Offeror’s proposal provides a sound approach for organizing and staffing its management team for accomplishing PWS requirements. The approach addresses, at a minimum, team staffing and

Page M - 6 function, team location or hierarchy in the Offeror’s organizational structure and the team’s decision-making authority.

2.1.2.6 Management Team Roles and Responsibilities

Offeror’s proposal provides a sound plan for defining management team roles and responsibilities at all levels. The proposal also identifies the personnel positions with management responsibilities. The plan addresses at a minimum, any title of the position with management responsibility, purpose of the position, duties and responsibilities of the position and level of decision-making authority.

2.1.2.7 Management and Government Interface

Offeror’s proposal provides a sound approach for interfacing with Government personnel to ensure successful communication and understanding of requirements and expectations. The approach addresses, at a minimum, the process for both formal and informal communications pertaining to performance of the contract, how management teams will routinely interface with

Government personnel charged with providing performance and administrative oversight, and how issues and concerns will be communicated to the Government in a timely manner .

2.1.2.8 Contract Manager Resume

Offeror’s proposal includes the resume of the prospective manager identified in the Contract

Manager letter of intent. The resume documents the manager’s verifiable skill and experience in managing efforts similar in magnitude and complexity to that of SEMATS 2 contract.

2.1.2.9 Staffing Plan

Offeror’s proposal provides a sound and reasonable plan for providing a qualified staff with the skills, certifications, and experience necessary to successfully execute the major elements of the baseline PWS and Task Order 0002 PWS. The approach addresses the actions necessary to ensure sufficient numbers of qualified and experienced employees are in place to assume full contract responsibilities throughout the life of the contract.

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound and reasonable plan for filling 90% of the positions within the Total Evaluated Price, excluding categories with one hour, no later than 15 days prior to the end of the transition phase. The approach addresses the actions necessary to ensure those positions are staffed with qualified and experienced employees capable of assuming full contract responsibilities on the first day of Task Order 0002 performance.

2.1.2.10 Transfer of Work As Incoming Contractor

Offeror’s approach demonstrates a sound and reasonable plan for transferring the work in progress from the incumbent contractor so as to take full responsibility on the first day of the period of performance for Task Order 0002 with minimal or no disruption. The plan addresses at a minimum, the following: the roles and responsibilities of the Offeror’s Transition Management

Team responsible for ensuring a successful transition; how the Offeror will work with the incumbent to identify and successfully transfer work in progress to ensure no disruption; how the

Offeror will regularly communicate transition progress to the Government; and the goals and metrics the Offeror will use to gauge progress.

Page M - 7

2.1.2.11 Transfer of Work to Successor Contractor

Offeror’s approach demonstrates a sound and reasonable plan for transferring the work in progress to the successor contractor. The plan addresses at a minimum, the following: the requirements of the Clause at Section H, EGLIN-H002, Successor Contractor Agreements AUG

2015; how the Offeror will work with the successor contractor to identify and successfully transfer work in progress to ensure no disruption.

2.1.3 Sub Factor 3: Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

Offeror’s proposal will demonstrate a sound understanding of the OCI issues that could potentially arise during contract performance and provide a reasonable methodology for avoiding or mitigating OCIs . Offerors plan will address at a minimum how the offeror will strictly comply with the Avoidance of Organizational Conflict of Interest Clause in Section H and OCI requirements in the PWS.

2.1.3.1 Recognizing Potential OCI Issues

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the OCI issues that may arise during contract performance. The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an understanding of the potential for conflicting roles to be avoided by the SEMATS 2 Contractor that might bias the Contractor's judgment or objectivity or result in an unfair competitive advantage (actual, potential, or perceived). The proposal addresses, at a minimum, how the role of the SEMATS 2 Contractor creates access to “inside information” and the potential appearance of unfair competitive advantage that can result and the conditions that might bring into question the Contractor's judgment or objectivity in providing independent airworthiness recommendations of aircraft-store weapon systems.

2.1.3.2 Detecting, Disclosing, Avoiding, and Mitigating OCI Issues and Risks

Offeror’s proposal provides a feasible approach for detecting, disclosing, avoiding, and mitigating OCI issues and risks, to include those resulting from subcontracts, teaming arrangements and joint ventures. The approach addresses, at a minimum, any potential OCIs created by the requirements of the PWS; how current and future Government business opportunities sought by the Offeror and/or its SEMATS 2 partners will be evaluated to determine if an OCI issue or risk exists; what steps will be taken to identify and disclose a potential or actual OCI to the Contracting Officer; and how a potential or actual OCI will be avoided or mitigated.

2.1.3.3 Enforceability and Effectiveness of Avoidance and Mitigation Strategies

Offeror’s proposal provides a feasible approach for ensuring that the Government’s industry customers have confidence in the enforceability and effectiveness of the Offeror’s OCI avoidance and mitigation strategies. The approach outlines the Offeror’s plan for communicating or flowing down the provisions of its mitigation plan to its SEMATS 2 partners;

for providing OCI training to employees and debriefing departing employees; organizational and employee sanctions to be put in-place for violations of established OCI procedures, requirements, and guidelines; requirements for periodic self-audits; and for making all records related to its OCI plan available to the Government upon request.

Page M - 8

2.1.4 Sub Factor 4: Program Management

Offeror’s proposal will demonstrate their ability to successfully manage labor hours and all contract elements throughout the contract life.

2.1.4.1 Cost Tracking

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an effective method for tracking all costs to include labor, travel, material, and relocation. The planned method for tracking costs addresses, at a minimum, the actions to be taken to ensure: incurred contract costs are authorized; costs are tied to the appropriate item; costs are tracked in a timely manner; the creation of an audit trail.

2.1.4.2 Job Order Numbering

Offeror’s proposal demonstrates the ability to accommodate the Government’s use of the Job

Order Number (JON) and Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) to account for and accumulate reimbursable cost data in the Job Order Cost Accounting System II (JOCAS II). The proposal describes, at a minimum, the Offeror’s billing process and the ability of its charging system to accrue contract cost data and generate invoices for reimbursable contract charges in the

JON/WBS format required.

2.1.4.3 Subcontractor Level of Effort

Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates the estimated number of hours proposed to be subcontracted with regard to Task Order 0002. The proposal includes, as a minimum, a letter of intent for each subcontractor and the percent of effort based on the number of hours for Task

Order 0002, not price, each subcontractor will perform.

Page M - 9

3.0 FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on (1) the past performance information provided in Volume III of the Offeror’s proposal and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

3.1 Scope

The purpose of the performance confidence evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the

Offeror’s likelihood of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance. For this solicitation, recent contracts and/or task orders are defined as work or a portion of work performed within 3 years prior to release of solicitation.

Relevant performance is described in Table 5.1A below. The Government may, at the

Contracting Officer’s discretion, disregard questionnaires received after its initial past performance evaluation has been completed. Efforts that meet the recency definition will then be assessed for relevancy.

3.1.1 Consideration of Past Performance

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts and/or task orders deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

3.1.2 Relevancy of Past Performance

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Evaluation than a less relevant effort. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record of favorable performance may receive a higher confidence assessment and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. Task Orders against IDIQ or

Blanket Purchase Agreement vehicles will be considered as separate efforts representing a single past performance record. Based on data obtained from the Offeror and from other sources, the evaluation team will assign a relevancy rating to each effort using the table below.

TABLE 5.1A – RELEVANCY FACTORS

Magnitude Complexity

VERY

RELEVANT

>=$10M per year and >= 75

MYEs per year

AND

Required management of DoD weapon system engineering plus any two (2) of the following areas: aeromechanical modelling and simulation, statistical analysis, high performance computing applications, computational fluid dynamics, information technology network cybersecurity protection in an advanced computing environment.

RELEVANT

>=$5M per year or

>=40

MYEs per year

AND

Required management of DoD weapon system engineering plus one (1) of the following areas: aeromechanical modelling and simulation, statistical analysis, high performance computing applications, computational fluid dynamics, information technology, network cybersecurity protection in an advanced computing environment.

Page M - 10

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

<$5M per year and

<40 MYEs per year

AND

Required management of personnel performing work in

Engineering plus one (1) of the following areas:

aeromechanical modelling and simulation, statistical analysis, high performance computing applications, computational fluid dynamics, information technology network cybersecurity protection in an advanced computing environment.

NOT

RELEVANT

Any

Amount

AND

Did not require management of personnel performing work in

Engineering; OR Required management of personnel performing work in Engineering, but did not require management of work in any of the following areas:

aeromechanical modelling and simulation, statistical analysis, high performance computing applications, computational fluid dynamics, information technology network cybersecurity protection in an advanced computing environment; OR does not meet definition of any other category.

Note: In the event that Magnitude cannot be validated by a source outside of the Offeror, the

Government will assume the Magnitude is “NOT RELEVANT.” Man Year Equivalent (MYE)

3.2.1 Performance Confidence Assessment

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment, rated in order of importance, of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, Unknown Confidence (Neutral), or No Confidence, or as defined in Table 5.1B below. In deciding whether to consider the prior efforts of predecessor companies, the Government will consider the availability of other relevant prior efforts, the similarity between the predecessor and the Offeror (e.g., in terms of workforce, management, facilities, or other resources), and the relevancy of the prior effort. The Government will not consider the past performance of key personnel.

3.2.2 Offerors with No Past Performance History

Offerors with no recent and relevant past performance history, or if the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

3.2.3 Offerors Proposing the Use of Subcontractors and/or Joint Ventures

The past performance of each subcontractor shall be attributed proportionally with work identified as being performed in Section L 2.2.5, subparagraph c. Offerors with any of the following shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral): Offerors or subcontractors, joint ventures, or teaming partners with no recent and relevant past performance history; Offerors whose performance record that is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Page M - 11

NOTE: The ratings in Table 5.1B are in descending order of confidence level.

TABLE 5.1B - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

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.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

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.

Page M - 12

4.0 FACTOR III – COST/PRICE

4.1 Criteria for Evaluation

The criteria used for evaluation are (1) price reasonableness, (2) Unbalanced Pricing, and (3)

Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. To facilitate the evaluation of proposal information requested in Section L of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, DCMA, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), U.S. Department of Labor, Global Insight

Indices and any other resource available to the Government.

4.1.1. GFP/GFI

The evaluated Cost/Price may include adjustments to offset any competitive advantage from the use of additional Government-Furnished Property (GFP), to include Documentation and

Software (e.g., GFP not furnished to all Offerors). If an Offeror proposes to use Government

Furnished Property (GFP) or Information (GFI), not being provided under this contract, the

Government will assess the associated values applied by the contractor to ensure a fair rental value (FRV) has been applied to eliminate any cost/price advantage associated with its use. FRV will be determined by taking the items’ estimated acquisition value from FedLog and using the formula found in FAR 52.245-9(e)(ii) with the rental period defined as total time item is in

Offeror’s possession. An example of how the formula works is as follows:

Item Acquisition Value Rental Time

X $100,000 8.5 months

(Acquisition Value x 2%) = Monthly FRV $100,000 x 2% = $2,000 (Monthly FRV)

(Monthly FRV x Rental Time) = Assessed FRV $2,000 x 8.5 = $17,000 (Assessed FRV)

In the event the assessed FRV is higher than the acquisition value, the lower value will be used as GFP/GFI adjustment number. The Offeror shall ensure that the use of GFP/GFI does not interfere with other authorized Government programs.

4.1.2 Labor Rates

The fixed-price labor rates that are proposed in Section L attachments 6a and 6b will be utilized in the evaluation of the Total Evaluated Price. The Government reserves the right to award, without discussions, Task Order 0002, based on TEP worksheet, where all labor categories with one hour are removed.

4.1.3 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submission for completeness and compliance with

Section L of the RFP. Offerors must propose a rate for each labor category, in every level, and in every year of the contract to be considered complete. The Government’s intent is to award Task

Orders 0001 with the basic contract award and reserve the right to award Task Order 0002 unilaterally at the price provided in the proposal up until the last day of transition. The

Government reserves the right to make this award without discussions. Task Order 0002 will consist of an order of Firm-Fixed Priced, Level of Effort comprised of the labor mix and hours specified on the Total Evaluated Price, Section L, Attachment 6b, excluding any categories with one (1) labor hour. Task Order 0002 will include a base year and four (4) option years. Blocks C7

Page M - 13 through F7, of Section L - Attachment 6a, shall become the option year pricing for CLIN 0001.

The Government will evaluate completeness by assessing the compliance of the offeror with the

RFP requirements and reserves the right, at the discretion of the PCO, to eliminate incomplete proposals.

4.1.4 Reasonableness

The Offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. The Government reserves the right to make no awards.

4.1.5 Materially Unbalanced Pricing

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between the labor rates and across the years. Materially unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of price balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Materially unbalanced pricing will be assessed on the fully burdened labor rates across the years.

4.1.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) includes transition, labor, ODC, and travel. Evaluated Price for labor will be based on the rates provided by the offeror and the hours provided by the Government in

Attachment 6b. Evaluated Price for ODC and travel will be the Government-furnished values in

Attachment 6a. Evaluated Price for transition will be the offeror-provided Firm-Fixed Price, which the offeror should provide in Attachment 6a. The offeror shall not adjust the formatting of the provided attachments 6a and 6b. The offeror will follow the directions outlined in Section L for completing these workbooks. Offerors shall not adjust prepopulated columns.

4.1.7. Proposals not in Compliance with Request for Proposal, Section L, and/or Section M

The offeror shall complete Section L, Attachment 6a and 6b. All years, all categories, and all levels in Section L, Attachment 6b shall be completed. The rates shall match the rates provided in Section J, Attachment 3. Any discrepancy between the rates within the two spreadsheets will be considered to be a nonconforming proposal and may, at the discretion of the Contracting

Officer, be cause for removal from the competition without further notification to the offeror, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(2).

5. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Failure to meet a solicitation requirement may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, to include, technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. If an

Offeror takes exception to any term or condition of this solicitation, the offeror must, as soon as practicable, clearly identify any exception, provide complete supporting rationale, and resolve any exception before receipt of proposals.