Attachment 5 Draft Eval Criteria.pdf

FA2486-20-F-1001

ATTACHMENT 5

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Technical and Management Advisory Services (TMAS) 2 96 Cyberspace Test Group

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR)

1.0 Task Order Selection

1.1 Basis for Task Order Award

This acquisition will utilize a fair opportunity down selection process as set forth in paragraphs 2.0 and 3.0 below. Selection will be made in accordance with (IAW) the Terms and Conditions of the General Services Administration One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services Small Business Multiple Award Contract (GSA OASIS SB MAC), and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR 16.505), as supplemented. The FAR and its supplements are available electronically at the Air Force FARSite, http://acquisition.gov. The proposal will be evaluated for cost realism/ reasonableness IAW Paragraph 3.2 of this document. A Task Order (TO) may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation) and whose proposal is evaluated, based on the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) with a Realistic and Reasonable Price (RRP).

The qualification categories maximize the objectivity of determining the HTRO. The Government finds that an individual Offeror with prior performance history in the qualification criteria listed in the HTRO self-scoring system (Attachment 17) presents a lower risk of unsuccessful performance.

Likewise, the Government finds that an individual Offeror with no or little prior performance history in the qualification criteria listed presents a higher risk of unsuccessful performance.

The Government reserves the right to reject any Offeror’s proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic or unreasonable. The Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges with all, some, or none of the Offerors.

Ties and Tie-Breakers In the event of a tie for highest scores after the Offerors’ HR Self-Scores are evaluated and validated, the following tie-breakers will be used, in the following order:

1. The first tie-breaker shall be the highest # CMEs transitioned within 90 calendar days (Criteria Section 3.1.3).

2. The second tie-breaker shall be the highest points total score on the combined Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS Reports) (Criteria Section 3.4.1 through 3.4.5).

3. The third tie-breaker shall be the highest # of personnel with Secret clearances (Criteria Section 3.1.5).

4. The fourth tie-breaker shall be based off of the highest number of separate geographic locations with at least 10 CMEs each (Criteria Section 3.1.2).

The Offeror with the highest score in the first tie-breaker will be considered the highest scoring Offeror and will be evaluated for Realistic and Reasonable Pricing. If the tied Offerors score the same http://acquisition.gov./ for the first tie-breaker criteria then they will move to the second tie-breaker and so on.

1.2 Interchanges

Offerors should propose their optimal work samples to this requirement. The Government intends to make a selection without interchanges. Should interchanges be conducted, Offeror responses to Interchange Notices will be considered in making the TO selection decision. The Government may conduct interchanges either orally or in writing, and may issue questions to some, none, or all Offerors. Reference the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) at Attachment 04 for additional instructions on conducting interchanges.

IMPORTANT: The Government reserves the right to contact the Prime or any Subcontractors, to substantiate, understand, or clarify any of the evidence provided.

1.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements such as terms and conditions and technical requirements in addition to those identified as qualification factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

2.0 Evaluation Methodology/Factors

The following evaluation factors and self-score point system will be used to evaluate each proposal.

The United States Government Task Order Evaluation Team (USG Eval Team) will rank the proposals based on initial self-scoring, and begin validation of the highest proposed self-score. If data on the self-score is not substantiated and the self-score of another proposal displaces the previous highest substantiated self-scored proposal, then the next highest self-scored proposal will begin the validation process. The proposal with the highest validated score will move to the cost/price evaluation phase. If the proposal’s cost/price is found to be realistic and reasonable, then the award will be made to that Offeror.

Factor 1: Contractor Rating System Factor 2: Cost/Price

3.0 Task Order Selection Process:

The TOs’ selection methodology will be FAR 16.505’s Fair Opportunity Selection process. This competitive strategy is neither Trade-off nor Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. The Government will conduct this competition using HTRO with a RRP methodology. Task order award will be made to the responsible Offeror that submits a proposal that has the highest validated technical rating (self-score), and has a realistic and reasonable price. Offerors will self-score themselves under each criterion and provide evidence (e.g. body of facts, data, proof) to substantiate that score. The Government will validate the Offeror with the highest self-score. The Government will validate each self-score up to the maximum score possible for each criterion. Each criterion has a weighting factor to be applied against the Offeror’s self-score, as shown in Attachment 17 Column J, Weight Factor. This weighting is multiplied against the Offeror’s self-score in Column I, Offeror’s Self Score and totaled under

Column M, Offeror’s Weighted Score. After a total is determined and validated for the highest technically rated Offeror, that Offeror will move forward for further evaluation under Factor 2. If the Offeror’s cost/price is found to be realistic and reasonable, award will be made to that Offeror.

If the highest technically rated Offeror is determined to be either unrealistic or unreasonable under Factor 2, the Offeror with the next highest self-score will be validated under Factor 1, and if the self-score is substantiated and the Offeror is the highest technically rated, that Offeror will move forward for further evaluation under Factor 2; and so forth until an Offeror with the highest Government validated self-score is deemed to have a realistic and reasonable price.

There will be NO tradeoffs between cost/price and technical.

The Offeror shall select a maximum of five (5) work samples (contracts or TOs) to submit as substantiating evidence for the self-score point system. The scoring of each qualification criterion shall come from the work samples submitted, unless otherwise stated. An acceptable work sample is defined as either a contract, or a TO under a master Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract (FAR 16.501-1). When referring to work samples, the terms “contract” and “TO” are interchangeable with “contract” often used as the all-encompassing term. A single IDIQ contract by itself is an acceptable work sample as long as it has only one CPAR.

All work samples must meet these minimum qualifications. The individual criteria in Paragraph

3.1 may add additional restrictions in addition to these minimums:

1. Must be a federal (United States Government) contract.

2. Must fall into one (1) of the following categories:

a. Category 1: At a minimum three (3) of the five (5) work samples must have be from the prime offeror, one (1) can be as a subcontractor .

b. Category 2: Team member work samples in which the team member was acting as Prime or Subcontractor and the team member is a proposed Subcontractor to the Prime for the proposed workload and performing at least 10.00% of the work-share in this proposal. A maximum of two (2) Category 2 work samples may be used. Signed teaming agreements between the Prime Offeror and each Subcontractor team member must be provided in Volume 1(b) if Category 2 work samples are to be used.

3. Must have included at least six (6) months of performance within the last five (5) years as of the date of this FOPR release.

4. Offeror or Subcontractor must have received Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings of “satisfactory” or above in all CPAR rating categories on the most recent assessment. A copy of the most recent CPAR must be included for all work samples as an attachment to the Work Sample Cover Sheet (Attachment 18).

a. In the event a CPARS rating has not been assessed, the Offeror must submit a Past Performance Rating Form (Attachment 15) in lieu of a CPAR. If the Past Performance Rating Form covers the most recent period of work, all ratings must be “satisfactory” or above. The USG Eval Team will attempt to contact at least one of the Government point of contacts provided with the work sample and establish an assessment of performance.

b. In the event a subcontractors work sample is used and no CPAR ratings are available, a Government POC will complete the Past Performance Rating Form, not the subcontractors Prime team-member.

c. In the event the work sample was assessed using a performance assessment system other than CPARS, the Offeror must provide the most recent rating. The rating must be commensurate to the CPARS rating of “satisfactory” or above.

Unless specifically stated within a criterion’s restriction, each work sample category will be used for the rating criteria and all work samples may be combined towards the Offeror’s total self-score within the criterion.

3.1 FACTOR 1: Contractor Self-Scoring Rating System

The USG Eval Team shall evaluate proposals and validate that the scores are accurate. The USG Eval Team reserves the right to contact the Points of Contact (POCs) provided in the Work Sample Cover Sheet (Attachment 18), the Prime or any Subcontractors, or any other Government resources, for any or all criteria during validation of self-scores. The Offeror is reminded that, IAW Paragraph 1.2, the Government intends to award this TO based on the initial proposals as received, without interchanges.

The USG Eval Team will rank the proposals based on initial self-scoring, and begin validation of the highest proposed self-score. If data on the self-score point system is not substantiated and/or validated by the USG Eval Team and the self-score of another proposal displaces the previous highest self-scored proposal, then the next-highest self-scored proposal will begin the validation process. The proposal with the highest validated score will move to the cost/price evaluation phase. Note that if a proposal is found to be unrealistically low and/or unreasonably high in the cost/price evaluation phase and interchanges are not entered, then the proposal with the next-highest score will move through the self-score validation phase, and then the cost/price evaluation phase, as stated above.

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

This factor evaluates the Prime Offeror’s self-score as proposed under each criterion of the Offeror Self-Scoring Matrix (Attachment 17). These self-scores can be based on Prime and/or Subcontractor contracts/TOs which are submitted as work samples, unless otherwise specified.

Note that several categories are for Prime only.

The USG Eval Team reserves the right to adjust any score if the evidence provided by the Offeror is inconsistent with the self-score, or if the evidence is insufficient for the USG Eval Team to validate the Offeror’s self-score. If the USG Eval Team cannot validate the Offeror’s self-score on a criteria based on the substantiating data provided, the USG Eval Team reserves the right to downward adjust the score, potentially all the way down to zero (0) points awarded.

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

IMPORTANT: The USG Eval Team will only adjust the Offeror’s self-score downward, not upward.

Subfactor 3.1: GENERAL

Subfactor 3.1.1: Number of total positions

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the total number of filled positions at a single point in time against the largest single work sample by this measure. The selected single point in time must be the same calendar date, and this point in time must be within five (5) years of this FOPR release date. This can include positions performed by Subcontractors in support of the work sample.

RESTRICTIONS: This category is restricted to a single work sample, and must be primed by the Offeror.

RELEVANCY: The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to perform on a contract/TO of similar magnitude. The maximum count of positions corresponds to the Level of Effort (LOE) Matrix position count (Attachment 03).

Subfactor 3.1.2: Number of geographically separated work locations.

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of geographic locations where service was performed by at least ten (10) Contractor Man-year Equivalents (CMEs) each, not including Temporary Duty (TDY) assignments. A “geographically separated work location” is defined as a Government installation where support is being performed.

RESTRICTIONS: This category is restricted to a single work sample, and must be primed by the Offeror. Additionally, for a location to count as a separate geographic location, it must be separated by at least 100 miles from another geographic location being claimed.

Teleworking/telecommuting employees must be counted with the geographic location of the Government agency they are supporting, not with the telework/telecommute location. Work samples wherein the Offeror was a subcontractor or work samples of Team Members are not acceptable.

RELEVANCY: This TO requires work to be performed at multiple geographic locations as specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and LOE Matrix (Attachments 1 and 3).

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

Subfactor 3.1.3: Number of incumbent positions transitioned in a 90 day span DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the highest number of incumbent positions transitioned within a given 90 calendar day period within a single work sample. Within 90 days is defined as a single 90 consecutive calendar day period. For example, 15 April 2019 to 14 July 2019 is 90 calendar days. Transitioning is defined as hiring personnel who had been employees of the incumbent contractor at the time the Offeror was awarded the work sample contract.

RESTRICTIONS: This category is restricted to a single work sample, and must be primed by the Offeror.

RELEVANCY: The USG has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to mitigating transition risk. The maximum count relates directly to the number of incumbents to be transitioned from the current TO to this follow on TO as depicted in the LOE Matrix (Attachment 03). This requirement includes many positions that are currently performed by incumbent contractors and will likely need to be subsumed at the award of this TO.

Subfactor 3.1.4: Number of non-incumbent Cybersecurity Engineering Support positions hired in a 30 day span DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of non-incumbent Cybersecurity Engineering Support personnel hired a given 30 calendar day period within a single work sample. Within 30 days is defined as a single 30 consecutive calendar day period. For example, 15 April 2019 to 14 May 2019 is 30 calendar days. Non-incumbent personnel are defined as contractor personnel hired to perform the requirements of the work sample who were not previously an employee of the incumbent contractor performing the requirement prior to the Offeror winning/ performing the requirement.

RESTRICTIONS: This category is restricted to a single work sample, and must be primed by the Offeror. These positions must be in compliance with DoD Instruction 8500.01, Para 1(d), which adopts the term “cybersecurity” as it is defined in National Security Presidential Directive- 54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive-23 to be used throughout the DoD, instead of the term "information assurance (IA).”

RELEVANCY: The USG has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to filling new requirements.

Subfactor 3.1.5: Number of personnel with current, adjudicated Secret or above clearances DEFINITION: The Offeror shall rate itself based off of the total number of personnel across all work samples that have a current, fully adjudicated Secret or above investigation. “Current” is defined as not longer than 30 calendar days before proposal submission.

RESTRICTIONS: None.

RELEVANCY: The USG has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to previous performance of DoD contracts/TOs and the ability of company leadership to understand unique the DoD missions, statutes, and regulatory environment. As shown on the LOE

Matrix (Attachment 03), many positions on this TO require that the performing personnel be granted Secret or above clearances

Subfactor 3.1.6: Financial stability DEFINITION: The Offeror shall rate itself based off of the percentage of cost of their base period of performance, where the Offeror either has the funding already available, or has a line of credit from a financial institution (Attachment 12), at the start of the base period of performance.

It is acceptable for the line of credit to be available contingent upon winning the TO as long as there is evidence. When self-scoring, Offerors shall enter only whole numbers, truncating any decimal portion of the percentage (e.g. for a line of credit equal to 22.6% of the base year cost, Offerors shall enter “22” in the self-scoring matrix).

RESTRICTIONS: Prime only.

RELEVANCY: The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to workforce stability, specifically where the Offeror has the ability to pay its employees and Subcontractor employees for approximately the first three (3) months of the 12 month period of performance. This will help avoid the potential situation where liquidation of payment is untimely from the Government, if the invoice/payment process has initial errors, if the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is furloughed, etc. Since the base period of performance is 12 months on this TO, the maximum points will be achieved if the Offeror has funding available for 25% of the base period cost, which covers approximately the first three (3) months of performance.

Subfactor 3.2: TECHNICAL

Subfactor 3.2.1: Number of contracts/TOs whose primary purpose is providing direct technical engineering support on Research Developmental Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Systems

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of contracts whose primary purpose is supporting C4ISR Cyber System DT&E support IAW PWS 3.0 and 3.1

RESTRICTIONS: Limited to DoD contracts/TOs only.

RELEVANCY: The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to experience in managing DoD Technical Engineering and test activities related to C4ISR under the 96 CTG. Additionally, this qualification is important as it relates to ability of company leadership to understand the nuances of a technical workforce.

Subfactor 3.2.2: Number of contracts whose primary purpose is performing C4ISR/Cyber systems support in aircraft and inter-connected system-of-systems (SoS) across the full Battlespace Arena and Kill-Chain DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of contracts whose primary purpose is supporting C4ISR/Cyber systems support in aircraft and inter-connected SoS across the full battlespace Arena and Kill-Chain, IAW PWS 3.0 and 3.1

RESTRICTIONS: Limited to DoD contracts/TOs only.

RELEVANCY: Support within Cyber systems and inter-connected SoS across the full Battlespace Arena and Kill Chain is a critical part of the 96 CTG mission.

Subfactor 3.2.3: Number of contracts whose primary purpose is providing testing for ground/airborne sensors and electronic warfare

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based the number of contracts whose primary purpose is performing testing for ground/airborne sensors and electronic warfare IAW PWS 3.0, 3.1, and 3.1.5.

RESTRICTIONS: Limited to DoD contracts/TOs only.

RELEVANCY: Ground/airborne sensor and electronic warfare testing is essential to the 96 CTG mission.

Subfactor 3.2.4: Number of contracts whose primary purpose is providing testing of offensive and defensive cyber warfare programs

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based the number of contracts whose primary purpose is providing testing of offensive and defensive cyber warfare programs IAW PWS 3.1.6

RESTRICTIONS: Limited to DoD contracts/TOs only.

RELEVANCY: Testing of offensive and defensive cyber warfare programs is essential to the 96 CTG mission.

Subfactor 3.2.5: Number of contracts whose primary purpose is providing Cybersecurity on Aircraft DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of contracts whose primary purpose is performing Cybersecurity on Aircraft IAW PWS 3.1.6, 3.1.8.

RESTRICTIONS: Limited to DoD contracts/TOs only.

RELEVANCY: Cybersecurity testing on aircraft is essential to the 96 CTG mission.

Subfactor 3.2.6: Number of contracts whose primary purpose is providing Cybersecurity/C4ISR testing through the entire lifecycle of a system

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of contracts whose primary purpose is performing Cybersecurity/C4ISR testing through the entire lifecycle of a system IAW PWS 3.1.6, 3.2, and 3.3.

RESTRICTIONS: Limited to DoD contracts/TOs only.

RELEVANCY: Cybersecurity testing over the entire lifecycle of systems is essential to the 96 CTG mission.

Subfactor 3.2.7: Number of contracts whose primary purpose is providing Cybersecurity compliance and resiliency testing

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of contracts whose primary purpose is performing Cybersecurity compliance and resiliency testing IAW PWS 3.1.6, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.1

RESTRICTIONS: Limited to DoD contracts/TOs only.

RELEVANCY: Cybersecurity compliance and resiliency testing is essential to the 96 CTG mission.

Subfactor 3.2.8: Number of contracts whose primary purpose is providing Cybersecurity compliance and penetration testing

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of contracts whose primary purpose is performing Cybersecurity compliance and penetration testing IAW PWS 3.1.6 and 3.2.

RESTRICTIONS: Limited to DoD contracts/TOs only.

RELEVANCY: Cybersecurity compliance and penetration testing is essential to the 96 CTG mission.

Subfactor 3.2.9: Number of contracts whose primary purpose is providing hardware and software Mission Planning Environment Tests for Aircraft DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the on the number of contracts whose primary purpose is supporting mission planning systems for hardware and software on aircraft IAW PWS 3.0 and 3.1.7.

RESTRICTIONS: Limited to DoD contracts/TOs only.

RELEVANCY: Mission Planning Environment support across systems on Aircraft is critical to the 96 CTG mission.

Subfactor 3.3: Defense Security Services (DSS) Vulnerability Assessment Rating

Subfactor 3.3.1: DSS Vulnerability Assessment Rating

The Prime Offeror shall provide its most recent DSS Vulnerability Assessment Rating for the Contractor and Government Entity (CAGE) Code under which the Prime Offeror is proposing. The most recent DSS Vulnerability Assessment Rating must be submitted along with any annual reviews accomplished in the time period between the most recent rating and the date of release of the FOPR.

The Government has determined these qualifications to be important as they directly relate to current capability and experience in developing, managing, and maintaining:

• Employee proficiency in handling and storage of classified materials and communications, and;

• Cleared facilities for the handling and storage of classified materials and communications.

Subfactor 3.4: CPAR RATINGS

Subfactors 3.4.1-3.4.5

Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based off of the total percent of CPARs categories that were rated “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, or “Unsatisfactory” for the CPAR categories of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management on all CPARs that were received on all work samples within the last five (5) years from the FOPR release date.

If CPARs are not available, the Offeror may use a Past Performance Rating Form (Attachment 15) to request comparable ratings from their Government customer. If utilized, Past Performance Rating Forms must be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. If CPARs are available to the Government, the Government will use CPARs only to verify Contractor performance. Team Member CPARs shall be submitted if a Team Member work sample has been used. Team Members may choose to submit their CPARs directly to the Government if there are concerns of proprietary information being exposed; however, it is the Government’s preference for Team Member CPARs to be included in the Prime Offeror’s proposal.

In the event a subcontractor’s work sample is used and no CPAR ratings are available, a Government POC will complete the Past Performance Rating Form, not the subcontractor’s Prime team-member.

Important: The USG Eval Team must be able to validate each CPAR rating for each performance period of the contract/TO that is submitted as a work sample. For example, if a single work sample is in the fifth year of performance at time of FOPR release, the Government will need to validate all CPARs from that work sample (i.e., the base year and three option years, for a total of four annual CPARs). If the Government did not complete an annual CPAR for a work sample, a Past Performance Rating Form may be used.

The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to a contractor’s previous performance and adherence to contractual terms and conditions. It is important to the Government to understand the level of quality on the provided work samples.

3.1 Burden of Proof

The burden of proof for substantiating points in the self-score point system rests with the Offeror.

The technical volume shall contain sufficient data to substantiate the points claimed in the Offeror’s proposal.

3.2 FACTOR 2: Cost and Price

The USG Eval Team will rank proposals from highest to lowest based on the Offeror’s total technical rating.

The USG Eval Team will validate the highest ranked Offeror’s proposal. If after validation the Offeror remains the highest ranked proposal, then it will be evaluated as described below for cost and price. If after cost and price evaluation the Offeror’s proposal is unrealistic or unreasonable, the next highest technically ranked proposal will be validated and then if they are still the highest ranked, evaluated for cost and price. This will continue until there is an Offeror with a proposed cost and price determined to be realistic, reasonable, and balanced after Most Probable Cost (MPC) adjustments.

The Offerors’ Cost and Price Volume(s) will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is realistic, reasonable, and not materially balanced.

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

See ITO Paragraph 17.2.3.2 for detailed information on direct and indirect rates.

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

If, during the Analysis, the Government determines that cost is overstated by greater than or equal to 10.00% in either Step 1 or Step 2, the proposal will be ineligible for award. An overstatement by greater than or equal to 10.00% is unreasonable and the cost is deemed to reflect a lack of sound business judgment.

Unrealistically low and/or unreasonably high priced proposals will be rejected.

3.2.1 Cost Realism/Reasonableness

An Analysis will be performed IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). The Government will perform an Analysis on the CPFF LOE CLIN(s) of the Offeror with the highest validated technical score. The Analysis will consider the extent to which proposed costs under the CPFF LOE CLIN(s) indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements, and determine whether they reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements and whether the proposed labor escalation and indirect factors are realistic and reasonable.

Two-Step Process for Determining Realism of the Proposed Costs Step 1:

The Government will perform its Analysis on both the individual direct labor rates and indirect labor rates located in the Uniform Pricing Template (UPT) against Government representative rates.

The analysis will use a MPC for all labor categories provided in the UPT based upon a survey of available data which may include but are not limited to: General Schedule (GS), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Economic Research Institute (ERI), Salary.com, in-house subject matter experts, and historical data to include previous support contract actual costs and/or negotiated pricing, along with data from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).

The Government will take the proposed direct rates in the Combined Labor Worksheet within the UPT and evaluate them for realism/reasonableness at a quantity of one hour. Any rates under/ overstated greater than or equal to 10.00% of the MPC will be evaluated, which could result in adjustments if the justification submitted in the Offeror’s BOE is deemed insufficient. If the proposed rate is a blended rate as described in ITO Paragraph 17.2.4.2, then the adjustment, if necessary, will occur at the blended rate as proposed and not in the buildup of the blended rate. The sum of all the proposed direct rates in the Combined Labor Worksheet within the UPT will be evaluated against the sum of all the evaluated/adjusted direct rates that are a result of the analysis performed on the individual direct labor rates. An upward/downward MPC adjustment greater than or equal to10.00% will determine that the proposal is unrealistic/unreasonable.

If the Offeror’s Step 1 adjustment is not greater than or equal to 10.00%, then the Analysis will progress to Step 2.

Step 2:

The Government will utilize the hours provided in the UPT against the burdened rates proposed (less fee) to calculate a total cost. This sum total will be evaluated against the sum total of the evaluated/adjusted burdened rates (less fee) with the hours provided in the UPT. A significant difference between the Offeror’s proposed cost and the MPC will be considered an indicator that the Offeror does not understand the requirement and/or the labor market. An upward/downward MPC adjustment greater than or equal to 10.00% will determine that the proposal is unrealistic/ unreasonable.

Total Evaluate Price includes FFP transition and CPFF labor costs. Total Evaluated Price excludes Other Direct Costs, Travel, Studies, Relocation, OCONUS Mission Essential Salary Allowances, and Contract Access Fees, which the Government considers too speculative to include in the TEP.

The MPC for the CPFF LOE CLIN(s), not the Offeror’s proposed cost, will be used for the purpose of evaluation to determine the Offeror’s total evaluated price.

The burden of proof for establishing the realism/reasonableness of all proposed costs rests with the Offeror in its cost volume. IAW ITO Paragraph 17.2.3.2 the Government will make MPC adjustments where it has evidence that proposed direct and/or indirect rates are not realistic/ reasonable.

3.2.2 Price Reasonableness

Price reasonableness will be established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. For additional information on determining reasonableness, see FAR 31.201-3. IAW FAR 15.403-1(b). The Government requires submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to support a determination of a realistic and reasonable price. The Government reserves the right to require certified cost or pricing data.

A proposed transition amount shall not exceed $50,000 and a proposed fee rate shall not exceed 5.00%. Transition amount and fee rates in excess of the not-to-exceed amount will not be considered fair and reasonable and the Offeror will not be eligible for award regardless of technical score. A transition amount of $50,000 and/or fee rate of 5.00% could still make the Offeror unreasonable as it could make its overall price unreasonable.

3.2.3 Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine if they are not materially unbalanced with respect to prices for separately priced line items and the fully burdened labor rates plus the fixed fee within the Combined Labor Worksheet. Unbalanced pricing exists when the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

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

3.2.4 Professional Employee Compensation

The Professional Employee Compensation Plan submitted in response to the solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR clause 52.222-46. The Compensation Plan will be relied upon as one of the elements in determining if an offeror is responsible and subsequently factor in to the determination of eligibility for award

3.2.5 Evaluation of Options

All options under the TO will be evaluated; however, evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3.2.6 Burden of Proof

The burden of proof for price reasonableness and cost realism rests with the Offeror. The Cost/Price volume shall contain sufficient data to substantiate both reasonableness and realism of the Offeror’s proposal.