Draft_Section_M_6_Aug_19.pdf

FA2521-18-R-0024

Instrumentation Range Support Program

RFP Section M 6 Aug 19

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award: The government will utilize the tradeoff process for this acquisition. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Capability/Technical Risk, Small Business Participation, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Technical proposals will be required and will be evaluated on an adjectival basis. All evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost/price in arriving at the best value determination. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

1.2. Number of Contracts to Be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for the Instrumentation Range Support Program (IRSP). However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.3. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions; however, if, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS

A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Capability/Technical Risk, Small Business Participation, Past Performance and Cost/Price. Technical proposals will be evaluated on an adjectival basis. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination that is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical Capability/Risk Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Supply Requirements Subfactor 3: Specialized Expertise

Factor 2: Small Business Participation

DRAFT

RFP Section M 6 Aug 19

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Cost/Price

All evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost/price in arriving at the best value determination.

2.1. Volume 1 – Combined Technical Capability/Risk Factor: The combined technical/risk rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement and the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

RFP Section M

2.1.1. Subfactor 1: Program Management. The proposed program management methodology will be evaluated in the approach the offeror will employ to result in processes that meet requirements with normal government involvement. The proposal will be technically rated in accordance with the adjectival ratings table above. The standard is met when:

2.1.1.1. Workforce Management (Organization/Staffing): The offeror demonstrates a clearly distinguishable workforce management approach by providing an organizational structure that appropriately allocates resources and skill levels consistent with SOW functions; and provides communication channels and lines of authority to effectively communicate with team members, subcontractors, other range contractors, and the Government. The Government team includes the Contracting Officer, Program Office, and supported ranges. All reporting relationships and responsibilities of all organizational elements are in alignment with the Statement of Work (SOW).

The offeror demonstrates a clearly distinguishable approach which adequately addresses fluctuating and evolving workloads. The approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements and adequately addresses managing fluctuations in required skill mix and quantity of personnel/staffing levels required to accomplish all ramp up/down situations in the SOW requirements for the workload indicators as well as simultaneously covering geographically diverse requirements. The proposal demonstrates a clearly distinguishable approach to acquire expertise and includes acceptable methods to retain, maintain and train personnel required to accomplish all SOW requirements across the whole spectrum of worldwide IRSP tracking systems and subsystems.

The offeror demonstrates a clearly distinguishable approach for cross-utilizing staff, as applicable, and the approach for management controls to ensure proper billing to the appropriate contract line item numbers (CLINs) and delivery orders. The proposal clearly demonstrates any price reductions resulting from cross utilization or management controls and explains how these efficiencies will be achieved.

2.1.1.2. Transition (Phase-In/Phase-Out): The proposal demonstrates a clearly distinguishable phase-in plan for assuming full operational complete contract responsibility by the end of the Phase-in period, 31 Dec 20. The plan clearly establishes an acceptable transition approach that interacts and coincides with the incumbent’s Phase-out plan. The plan demonstrates an understanding of and provides clear explanation of how the following transition points will be managed: creating a warehouse, performing joint inventory, establishing logistics to move inventory, setting up an inventory management system, hiring of key employees, acquiring special tooling, establishment of subcontractor arrangements, assuming accountability for all Government

RFP Section M

Furnished Property/Equipment (GFP/E), and complying with Defense Property Accountability System (DPAS) requirements.

The proposal demonstrates a clearly distinguishable approach to the offeror’s ability to identify and establish initial manning required from phase-in start and establishes a personnel phase-in by time and labor category leading up to full performance. The proposed approach adequately addresses processing facility clearance, security clearances, and badging for day one of full performance.

The proposal identifies potential contingencies that may arise during the Phase-in and identifies mitigation strategies for each.

A phase-out plan that details how the contractor will transfer responsibility to another contractor at the end of the final contract year. Demonstrate a clear plan that includes interfacing with the new contractor, schedule of key events, transfer of GFP/E, all while meeting all SOW requirements until the completion of the contract. Also, demonstrate a clearly distinguishable approach to mitigate identified risks associated with contract performance including phase-out/phase-in of the contract.

2.1.1.3. Program Execution (Cost/Schedule/Performance): The proposal demonstrates a clearly distinguishable approach to manage contract costs, project schedules, and overall performance required to accomplish all tasks specified within the SOW. The approach must reference and integrate key areas specified within your program management and workforce management approaches above while further developing your unified approach to managing 27 unique customers, spread across worldwide locations, executing across dozens of delivery orders, and hundreds of contract modifications per contracting ordering period.

2.1.2. Subfactor 2: Supply Requirements.

2.1.2.1. Material Acquisition. The proposal demonstrates a clearly distinguishable plan for purchasing materials listed as sample parts in Attachment L-07 to include manning, skill mix, and estimated lead times for delivery of items required to complete the tasks IAW SOW Paragraph 4.1.1.

2.1.2.2. Field Overhauls. The proposal demonstrates a clearly distinguishable process for performing a field overhaul and appropriate manning levels and skill mix and identifies critical technical issues and risks along with appropriate mitigation strategies in accordance with the requested field overhauls provided in Attachment L-04. Your approach shall also specify an overall scheduling approach to accomplish seven (7) overhauls per year. Process must demonstrate how the offeror will successfully perform the field overhauls in Attachment L-04 IAW SOW Paragraph 4.3.2.

2.1.2.3. System Modifications. The proposal demonstrates a clearly distinguishable process for performing a system modification and appropriate

RFP Section M manning levels and skill mix; and identifies critical technical issues and risks along with appropriate mitigation strategies in accordance with the requested system modifications provided in Attachment L-05 and SOW Paragraph 4.5.

Process must demonstrate how the offeror will successfully perform the system modifications in Attachment L-05 IAW SOW Paragraph 4.4.

2.1.2.4. Test and Specialized Equipment. The proposal demonstrates a clearly distinguishable plan for purchasing test equipment listed in Attachment L-07 to include manning and skill mix required to complete the tasks IAW SOW Paragraph 3.3.3.

2.1.2.5. Component Remanufacture and Fabrication. The proposal demonstrates a clearly distinguishable approach for remanufacturing and/or fabricating all items for both non-range and range specific perspective for items listed as sample parts in Attachment L-07 to include manning and skill mix required to complete the tasks IAW SOW Paragraphs 3.3.2 and 4.1.2.

2.1.2.6. Transportation. The proposal demonstrates a clearly distinguishable approach for transporting items listed as sample parts in Attachment L-07 from the contractor’s facility to the ranges identified in Attachment L-07, to include manning and skill mix required to complete the tasks IAW SOW Paragraph 4.5.2.

2.1.3. Subfactor 3: Specialized Expertise:

2.1.3.1. Engineering Tasks and Samples. The proposal demonstrates a clearly distinguishable approach to the ability to use an appropriate skill mix and effective management practices necessary to perform engineering and technical support on the sample task provided in Attachment L-06 IAW SOW Paragraph 4.2. as well as your overall systems engineering approach.

2.1.3.2. Obsolescence Engineering. The proposal describes and demonstrates a clearly distinguisable approach for addressing obsolescence management and diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages.

Demonstrate a clear ability to use an appropriate skill mix and effective management practices necessary to perform the obsolescence sample tasks for the equipment in the sample task in Attachment L-06 IAW SOW Paragraph 3.3.1.

2.2. Volume 2 – Small Business Participation Factor

All offerors (both other than small businesses (large) and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of proposed participation/commitment to use Small Businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein.

The Government will evaluate the following to determine if the offeror met or exceeded the requirements.

RFP Section M

2.2.1. Prime Offeror’s Size: The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

2.2.2. Associated MQR’s: The offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document submission of Section L, Table 2.2 above, indicating the business category and percentage of Total Contract Value will be evaluated against the below stated Government Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) Percentages:

Note 1: Included as part of Total Small Business goal

Note 2: DFAR 219.703 - Eligibility requirements for participating in the program. (a) Qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind and other severely disabled, that have been approved by the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled under the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48), are eligible to participate in the program as a result of 10 U.S.C. 2410d and Section 9077 of Pub. L. 102-396 and similar sections in subsequent Defense appropriations acts. Under this authority, subcontracts awarded to such entities may be counted toward the prime contractor’s small total small business goal.

Business Size MQR Sub Percentage

Base Ordering Period

MQR Sub Percentage

Option Ordering Period

Small Business 35% 35%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

5% 5%

Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

.05% .05%

Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB)

5% 5%

Service-Disabled Veteran- Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

1% 1%

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) Note: 1

No Established

MQR

No Established MQR

Ability One (Non-Profit) Small Business Note:1 and 2

No Established

MQR

No Established MQR DRAFT

RFP Section M

2.2.3. Small Business Concerns (SBC): The extent to which firms as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals.

2.2.4. Proposed Ranges: The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed current and planned proposed range of services, supplies, and any other support that will be provided to you by small business and socio-economic categories.

2.2.5. Listing of Supplies/Services: The extent of listing and identifying the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform for supplies/services. Specifically reference to SOW paragraphs as applicable to identify the variety of the work small businesses will perform.

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

2.2.7. Description of Efforts: The extent to which offerors provide a description of efforts to assure that small business concerns and socio-economic categories -veteran-owned small business; service-disabled veteran-owned small business;

HUBZone small business; small disadvantaged business; or a women-owned small business concern will have equal opportunity to compete for subcontracts under any resulting contract. Additionally, a description of the efforts to assure supplies or services are provided by nonprofit agencies that employ people who are blind or significantly disabled and are associated with SourceAmerica under the AbilityOne Program. The name and title of the individual principally responsible for ensuring company support to such firms is also provided.

2.2.8. Performance Data: The extent the type of performance data is provided regarding support of small business and socio-economic business categories during the period of contract performance.

2.2.9. Subcontracting Plan: The subcontracting plan will not be evaluated;

however, the plan shall be assessed for acceptability prior to contract award.

2.2.10. Best Value: The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine which offeror proposes the best value in terms of Small Business Participation. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract (See Section J, Attachment

TBD).

RFP Section M

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

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

2.3. Volume 3 - Past Performance Factor:

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below in Table 2.3.1 Performance Confidence Assessments.

TABLE 2.3.1 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.

RFP Section M

2.3.1. Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency, and commercial sources.

2.3.1.1. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years immediately preceding the issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.1.2. Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and cost/price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed as stated in Table 2.3.1.2. for the Technical subfactors and the established contract magnitude stated in the table; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being

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.

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.

RFP Section M reviewed and evaluated. The Performance Evaluation Questionnaires (PEQs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the relevancy definitions in Table 2.3.1.2. when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table 2.3.1.2 RELEVANCY CRITERIA

Relevancy Areas:

Program Management Supply Requirements Specialized Expertise

Relevancy Elements:

Performed program management and inventory management

Acquired materials, test, and specialized equipment and managed shipment of parts to customer’s location. Performed overhauls and system modifications involving component remanufacture and/or fabrication of on systems similar to Section J-Attachment 7.

Provided engineering, technical support, and performed Obsolescence Engineering on systems similar to Section J- Attachment 7.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

VERY

RELEVANT:

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

Present/past performance efforts include all three (3) of the Relevancy Areas on systems similar to Section J – Attachment 7 at or above a total annual contract magnitude of $20M.

RELEVANT:

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

Present/past performance efforts include three (3) of the Relevancy Areas on systems similar to Section J – Attachment 7 at or above a total annual contract magnitude of $10M.

RFP Section M

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT:

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

Present/past performance efforts include at least two (2) of the Relevancy Areas systems similar to Section J- Attachment 7 at or above a total annual contract magnitude of $5M.

NOT

RELEVANT:

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.2. Performance Evaluation:

2.3.2.1. Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant and somewhat relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. 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 separately assess the quality of subcontracting goals via CPARS or other sources. This assessment will be incorporated into the confidence assessment. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. 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.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

RFP Section M

Table 2.3.3 Performance Quality Ratings

Quality Assessment Rating Description EXCEPTIONAL (E) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG) During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U) During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N) Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

2.3.3. Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance

RFP Section M confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and/or relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4. Volume 4 - Factor 4 - Cost/Price Factor:

The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated to determine that the proposal is complete, reasonable, realistic, and balanced. This information will then be used in the tradeoff analysis to make a best value determination.

The cost volume will be evaluated in two parts. The first cost/price proposal will be evaluated to assist in determining the initial competitive range, and the second Full Proposal will be evaluated to make a best value determination.

2.4.1. Complete Proposal. The Government will evaluate completeness of the offeror’s submitted cost/price volume based on the initial Limited Cost/Price volume response provided and the subsequent Complete Cost/Price volume if the proposal is included within the competitive range. The Cost/Price volume shall address all Section L Paragraph 2.4. Volume 4 requirements (both the first Limited Cost/Price Data and second Full Cost/Price proposals). The complete proposal shall include completed versions of the Cost/Price Workbook, Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Worksheet (Attachment L-11) with supporting cost detail (Backup data). Failure to provide required narrative description, applicable worksheets, or supporting detail may make the proposal ineligible for award.

2.4.1.1. Part I – First Cost/Price Submittal: Limited Cost/Price Data Proposal

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted for completeness (para 2.4.1) reasonableness, balance and total evaluated price (see paragraphs below).

Reasonableness

RFP Section M

The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. In the event that the Contracting Officer determines competition was not adequate, proposals will be evaluated to assess the reasonableness using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404 such as cost analysis.

Balanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items (including Basic Ordering and Optional Ordering Year) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced contract line items (CLIN). Prices proposed will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure and CLIN Schedule. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated prices of all the CLINs as outlined within L-11, the Cost/Price Workbook for both the Basic and Optional Ordering periods.

Offerors are advised that the evaluation of the optional ordering period shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.4.1.2. Part II - Second Cost/Price Submittal: Full Cost/Price Proposal

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume IV, Cost/Price Proposal for completeness (see para 2.4.1), reasonableness, Total Evaluated Price, Affordability, Balance, and Cost Realism. The Cost realism issues, the total evaluated probable cost/price, and affordability information will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the best value determination.

Cost/Price will not receive a color/ adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate affordability for CLIN 0004, Transition In-Out. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s cost/price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404.

Reasonableness

The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to

RFP Section M further validate price reasonableness. In the event that the Contracting Officer determines competition was not adequate, proposals will be evaluated to assess the reasonableness using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404 such as cost analysis.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) - Explanation of Proposed Cost. The TEP will be the summation of all CLINs from the TEP Worksheet (Attachment L- 11), to exclude the Transition In/Out CLIN.

The Cost/Price Workbook will include a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Rollup Worksheet (Attachment L-11) with supporting cost detail (Backup data). The TEP will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with the techniques and procedure described under FAR 15.404-1. The evaluation techniques described under FAR 15.404-1(b) and FAR 15.404-1(c), as determined appropriate by CLIN type, may also be performed in further determining reasonableness of the proposed price. The offeror’s proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements specified in Section L of the RFP. The assessment will consider the traceability of the pricing information provided throughout both the Cost/Price Workbook and Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Worksheet (Attachment L-11) with supporting cost detail (Backup data). The Transition In/Out price (Schedule B, CLIN 0004) will be evaluated for reasonableness and affordability in accordance with the techniques and procedure described under FAR 15.404-1.

Affordability: CLIN 0004 will be reviewed for Reasonableness and Affordability only. The Government will document the results in the written evaluations and comparative analysis and the Source Selection Authority may take these into account. To be affordable, CLIN 0004 shall not exceed $ X.X.

Balanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items (including Basic Ordering and Optional Ordering Year) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced contract line items (CLIN). Prices proposed will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure and CLIN Schedule. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

RFP Section M

Cost Realism

Cost realism analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) as appropriate. Cost realism analysis will consist of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror's proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed under the cost reimbursable and CPFF CLINs; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's technical proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(1). A probable cost will be assessed for CLIN X001 (Program Management), X003 (Obsolescence, Remanufacture & Fabrication, Test & Specialized Equipment, Stock Replenishment), X005 (Routine Range Requirements (Material Acquisition, Remanufacture & Fabrication), X006 (High Cost Range Requirements (Material Acquisition, Remanufacture & Fabrication), X007 (Engineering, Field Support, Technical Studies & Investigations, X009 (System Modifications), X010 (Travel/Transportation), and X011 (CDRLS/Data)The probable cost reflects the Government's best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the offeror's proposal. The probable cost is determined by adjusting the offeror's proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the result of the realism analysis. If the Government determines a probable cost adjustment is necessary, the probable cost will be included as part of the TEP and shall be used in the evaluation to determine best value.

The Government will analyze offeror’s proposal submissions to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, costs, variable labor hour quantities, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.2. Labor Rates Listing: IAW the offeror’s proposal submission relative to Section L Paragraph 2.4.2, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Labor categories as per the information requested in Table 2.4.2, Contract Labor Rates Listing.

2.4.3. Cost Mischarging Prevention Plan. IAW the offeror’s proposal submission relative to Section L Paragraph 2.4.3., the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed method of preventing the improper allocation of cost between fixed price and cost CLINs or movement of direct labor costs to indirect cost pools, to include subcontractor methods (if applicable). To be acceptable, the offeror’s prevention measures must demonstrate established procedures for proper cost allocation, ability to provide documentation of the work performed (to include labor category and employee identification) for labor hours charged to cost CLINs and provide an internal audit process for identifying and correcting incorrect labor charges. Failure to present an acceptable plan may cause the offer to be rejected.

RFP Section M

2.5. Volume 5 – Administrative Documents

2.5.1. Solicitation/Model Contract Representations and Certifications.

Complete blocks 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the RFP Section A, SF 33

2.5.1.1. Section G - Contract Administrative Data. Completed fill-ins required

2.5.1.2. Section I – Complete any fill-ins required

2.5.1.3. Section K - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors. Complete representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements.

2.5.1.4. Section L, paragraph 2.2.9 – If Other Than Small Business (Large) Offeror, Subcontracting Plan.

2.5.1.5. Acknowledgment of all amendments issued (if applicable)

2.5.1.6. Statement of the period for which the proposal is valid (not less than 210 calendar days)

2.5.1.7. EXCEPTIONS OR ASSUMPTIONS TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

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

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

2.5.2. Offeror Information Required

2.5.2.1. Authorized Offeror Personnel: Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding source selection decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the government.

2.5.2.2. Company/Division Street Address: Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code, and size of business (large or small). This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be

RFP Section M performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

2.5.2.3. Department of Labor Equal Employment Opportunity Clearance. IAW FAR Part 22.805, the CO must request pre-award clearance on Prime contractors or Teaming Partners (not subcontractors) from the appropriate Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) regional office. If an offeror is listed in OFCCP’s National Pre-award Registry, located at https://ofccp.dol-esa.gov/preaward/pa_reg.html, the offeror shall provide the CO a copy of the database registration for Government verification as part of the proposal submission. If an offeror is not listed in the registry, include a statement providing this information and the CO will request an EEO clearance review.

M-3 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

3.1. Pre-Award Survey: The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M-4. SOLICITATIONS REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

4.1. Solicitations Requirements, Terms, and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

The Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. The Government; however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

4.2 PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION: Offerors past performance information will be used as a basis for the Contracting Officer’s determination of responsibility. Offerors must be deemed responsible to receive contract award IAW FAR 9.104.