EWOCS_Draft_Section_M.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection

Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the

Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the

Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

1.2. Number of Contracts to Be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for the Eastern Western Operational Communications Services. However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.3. Discussions: The Government intends to award this contract after discussions, which will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the

Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

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: Volume I – Factor 1 –Technical

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the factor and subfactors described below:

Factor One: Technical (which includes both Technical and Combined Technical/Risk

Ratings)

Subfactor 1: Eastern Western Communications Services (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Subfactor 2: Program Management

Subfactor 3: Eastern Range Dynamic Communications Services

Subfactor 4: MDA Communications Services

Factor Two: Past Performance

Factor Three: Cost/Price

2.1.1. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past

Performance) next in importance and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is last in importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Within Factor 1, subfactor 1 is acceptable/unacceptable, and subfactors 2, 3, and 4 are equal in importance.

2.2. Factor 1 –Technical Evaluation Factors, Subfactors, and Rating: The Technical evaluation provides for a combined technical/risk rating.

2.2.1. Technical Rating. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Subfactor 1 will receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating as defined in Table 2.1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable

Rating Method, excerpted below. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The Combined Technical/Risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Each Technical subfactor except for subfactor 1, will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described in

Table 2.2 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method, excerpted below. The risk rating definitions are described in Table 2.3 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method, excerpted below. The technical ratings focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color/adjectival rating for the Combined Technical/Risk Capability factor. In arriving at a best value decision, the

Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, for performance in excess of

Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, which may be used as a tradeoff for a higher cost proposal.

Technical capability will consist of four subfactors (as shown above), to be evaluated separately. Subfactor 1 is acceptable/unacceptable, and subfactors 2, 3, and 4 are equal in importance. In order to be awarded the contract, the offeror must receive an acceptable rating on subfactor 1. The possible rating for subfactor 1 includes unacceptable and acceptable. The possible ratings for subfactors 2, 3, and 4 include unacceptable, marginal, acceptable, good, and outstanding.

Table 2.1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 2.2 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Technical Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

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

Green Acceptable

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

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

Red Unacceptable

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

Table 2.3 Technical Risk Rating Method

Adjectival

Rating Description

Low

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

Moderate

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

High

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

Unacceptable

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

2.2.2. Subfactor 1 (Acceptable/Unacceptable): Eastern and Western

Communications Services: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to Eastern and

Western Communications Services. In all responses, please distinguish the uniqueness between

45 SW and 30 SW, by location. The standard is met when:

2.2.2.1. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to provide engineering and technical services for communication system planning, design and execution IAW requirements in the PWS.

2.2.2.2. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to perform vulnerability management, COMSEC operations and management, and Assessment and

Authorization (A&A) via Risk Management Framework (RMF) process, to include training and maintaining appropriate certifications IAW requirements in the PWS.

2.2.2.3. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to perform operations, maintenance and administration for the telephone switch Time Division Multiplexing, Voice over Internet Protocol, Giant Voice, public address, intercom, and aural warning system IAW requirements in the PWS.

2.2.2.4. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to perform video operations, visual imagery and intrusion detection systems, access control and alarm systems IAW requirements in the PWS.

2.2.2.5. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to install, operate and maintain unclassified and classified network communications services to wing and tenant organizations, IAW requirements in the PWS.

2.2.2.6. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to staff and operate a client service center 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (24/7/365) with either continuous manning or on-call after-hours response capability to support a communications system control center IAW requirements in the PWS.

2.2.3. Subfactor 2 (Adjectival): Program Management: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to Program Management. In all responses, please distinguish between 45

SW, 30 SW, and MDA program management services, by location. The standard is met when:

2.2.3.1. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to provide comprehensive communications services across all aspects of communications—from traditional operations to dynamic requirements (which include launch environment and

Missile Defense Agency communications services).

2.2.3.2. The proposed approach demonstrates a complete organizational chart with staffing plan which identifies manning levels, labor categories, personnel certifications and training requirements for 45 SW, 30 SW, and MDA. The staffing plan also identifies which positions are filled by subcontractor employees. The proposed approach provides an acceptable methodology for workforce management which demonstrates the capability to manage fluctuating and evolving workload and provides flexibility to meet changing workloads and quick-response requirements. The approach identifies an acceptable skill mix and staffing levels to accomplish the PWS requirements as well as specific labor categories and staffing levels shared between the cost and fixed-priced CLINs.

2.2.3.3. The proposed approach demonstrates the program management capability to perform communications services for other contractors, launch providers and various mission partners IAW requirements in the PWS.

2.2.3.4. The proposed approach demonstrates the program management capability, including the authority, accountability, and responsibility of the Offeror’s

Program Director, at both the 45 SW and 30 SW to execute the overall EWOCS program

(traditional communications services and dynamic communications services) and of the

MDA Program Lead to execute MDA’s program and identify the decision- making flow within the contractor team IAW requirements in the PWS.

2.2.3.5. The proposed approach demonstrates the program management capability to be fully operational in every area of the PWS on day one of full performance of the contract as specified in Appendix A, Communications Systems and Services Matrix.

2.2.3.6. The proposed approach demonstrates the program management capability to prepare, maintain, and report a Contractor Work Breakdown Structure

(CWBS) (to the third level) to organize and graphically display contract cost or services provided that it shows a clear link between CLIN, CWBS, and PWS labor skills IAW requirements in the PWS.

2.2.4. Subfactor 3 (Adjectival): Dynamic Communications Services: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to Dynamic Communications Services. The standard is met when the Offeror’s approach meets the staffing requirements specified within the workload factors in PWS Appendix A, Communication Systems and Services Matrix, and:

2.2.4.1. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to accurately estimate cost of and to complete surge requirements and unplanned, overtime work for emergency or urgently prioritized work as required by Task Orders IAW requirements in the PWS.

2.2.4.2. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to provide near real-time O&M communications support for all launch operational activities simultaneously occurring throughout CCAFS (and interfacing with KSC as appropriate) IAW requirements in the PWS.

2.2.4.3. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to provide near real-time technical support to include planning, designing, installation, sustainment, and disposal for communications systems IAW requirements in the PWS.

2.2.4.4. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to establish and perform communication configurations and coordinate interfaces before and during launch operations related system checks, tests and operations IAW requirements in the

PWS.

2.2.5. Subfactor 4 (Adjectival): MDA Communications Services: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to MDA Communications Services. The standard is met when the Offeror’s approach meets the staffing requirements specified within the workload factors in

PWS Appendix A, Communication Systems and Services Matrix, and:

2.2.5.1. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to provide real-time responsiveness to operations & maintenance, sustainment, and configuration management support to communications systems IAW requirements in PWS.

2.2.5.2. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to perform unique

MDA vulnerability management, COMSEC operations and management, and A&A via

RMF process IAW requirements in the PWS. Specifically addresses the risk and mitigation of performing these cybersecurity requirements amidst conflicting priorities between real-world missile defense and cybersecurity AO priorities.

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS: Volume II - Factor 2 – Past Performance

3.1. Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

3.1.1. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Table 3.1 Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Table 3.1 Performance Confidence Assessments

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

No Confidence

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

3.1.2. 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, Major Subcontractors, Teaming

Partners, or Joint Venture Partners’ recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor for those requirements that they are proposed to perform. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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

(PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management

Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee

Determining Officials.

3.1.2.1. 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 three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

3.1.2.2. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information performed by the Offeror, Major

Subcontractors, Teaming Partners, or Joint Venture Partners obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the

Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor for those requirements that they are proposed to perform. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price

Factor (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 Major Subcontractors, Teaming

Partners, or Joint Venture Partners. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, major subcontractor, teaming partner, or joint venture partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Past performance provided from sources other than the

Offeror, Major Subcontractors, Teaming Partners, or Joint Venture Partners or for work that they are not proposed to perform will not be evaluated. The Past Performance

Questionnaire 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 3.2 when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table 3.2 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Eastern Western

Communications

Services

Program

Management

Eastern Range

Dynamic

Communications

Services

MDA

Communications

Services

Very Relevant

Operated and maintained large voice, data, video and comm infrastructure

(especially network

O&M) for Air Force base activities with 5000+ users

Magnitude at least $20M annually in communication requirements supporting

DoD customers

Experienced performing comm services in a time sensitive, event based environment on a DoD test range

Experienced performing comm services in an extremely time sensitive, event based environment on a DoD test range

And And And And

Install, operate, maintain unclassified and classified networks for large complex DoD infrastructure

Managing requirements on a single contract across geographically separated locations, to include multiple DoD installations, and overseeing activities of subcontractors

Experienced in designing and implementing innovative communication solutions to highly complex systems

Experienced in designing and implementing innovative communication solutions to highly complex systems

And And And And

Operate and maintain large complex client service centers at multiple locations

24/7/365

Managing a task order based contract with over

200 employees

Experienced performing

DoD COMSEC, OPSEC, A&A, cyber requirements IAW RMF

Experienced performing

DoD COMSEC, OPSEC, A&A, cyber requirements IAW RMF

Relevant

Operated and maintained large voice, data, video and comm infrastructure

(especially network

O&M) for DoD base activities with 3500+ users

Magnitude at least $10M annually in communication requirements supporting

DoD customers

Experienced performing complex comm requirements in a dynamic, high ops tempo environment

Experienced performing complex comm requirements in a dynamic, high ops tempo environment

And And And And

Install, operate, maintain unclassified and classified networks for complex DoD infrastructure

Managing requirements on a single contract across geographically separated locations and overseeing activities of subcontractors

Experienced in designing and implementing innovative communication solutions

Experienced in designing and implementing innovative communication solutions

And And And And

Operate and maintain large client service centers 24/7/365

Managing a contract with over 100 employees

Experienced performing

DoD COMSEC, OPSEC, A&A, cyber requirements IAW RMF

Experienced performing

DoD COMSEC, OPSEC, A&A, cyber requirements IAW RMF

Somewhat Relevant

Operated and maintained large voice, data, video and comm infrastructure

(especially network

O&M) for DoD base activities with 2000+ users

Magnitude at least $5M annually in communication requirements supporting

DoD customers

Experienced performing comm requirements in a dynamic, high ops tempo environment

Experienced performing comm requirements in a dynamic, high ops tempo environment

And And And And

Operate and maintain client service center

Managing a contract with over 30 employees

Experienced performing

RMF requirements IAW

RMF in a highly comm environment

Experienced performing

RMF requirements IAW

RMF in a highly comm environment

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the above Very

Relevant, Relevant, or Somewhat Relevant definitions.

3.1.2.3. Quality of Services Assessment. The Government will consider information from customers on how well the offeror performed on past contract citations.

For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services, 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 of services assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality of services assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

3.1.3. Assigning Performance Confidence Assessments Rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality of services assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see Table 3.1 above). 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 a "Neutral

Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral 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.

3.2. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contract citations deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

3.3. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section

L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

M-4 EVALUATION FACTORS: Volume III - Factor 3 – Cost/Price

The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated to determine that the proposal is complete, reasonable, 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 Cost/Price Proposal will be evaluated to make a best value determination.

4.1. Complete Proposal: The Government will evaluate completeness of the offeror’s submitted cost/price volume. The cost/price volume shall address all Section L Paragraph 4.1.

Volume 3 requirements (both the first Limited Cost/Price Data and second Full Cost/Price proposals). The proposal shall include completed versions of the Cost/Price Workbook with supporting cost detail and the Labor Rate Listings. Failure to provide required narrative description, applicable worksheets or supporting detail may make the proposal ineligible for award.

4.2. First Cost/Price Submittal: Limited Cost/Price Data Proposal:

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume 3, Cost/Price

Proposal for completeness (paragraph 4.1 above), reasonableness (paragraph 4.2.1.), and balance

(paragraph 4.2.2.). A total evaluated price will be calculated in accordance with paragraph 4.2.3 to include options (paragraph 4.2.4).

4.2.1. Reasonableness: The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

4.2.2 Balanced: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, costs and separately priced line items IAW 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.

4.2.3. Total Evaluated Price: The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes using the total price proposed for fixed-price CLINs and the Probable Cost (PC) for cost type CLINs for all 7 years (5 year base and one 2 year option) plus 50% of the FY 2028

CLIN value (for purposes of evaluating the potential cost of an extension under 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services). The offeror's proposed estimated costs for Cost CLINs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes. The combination of the proposed price (Fixed Price

CLINs) and the PC (Cost CLINs) will form the TEP.

4.2.4. Options: Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

4.3. Second Cost Proposal Submittal: Full Cost/Price Proposal:

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume 3, Cost/Price

Proposal for completeness (paragraph 4.1 above), reasonableness, balance, and cost realism.

This information will then be used in the tradeoff analysis to make a best value determination. A total evaluated price will be calculated in accordance with paragraph 4.3.4. The cost/price volume shall adequately describe the offeror’s proposed accounting system, how the proposed cost was derived, and measures to prevent cost mischarging. The proposal shall include completed versions of the Cost/Price Workbook with supporting cost detail and the Labor Rate

Listings. Failure to provide required narrative description, applicable worksheets, or supporting detail may make the proposal ineligible for award.

4.3.1. Reasonableness: The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

4.3.2 Balanced: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, costs and separately priced line items IAW 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.

4.3.3. Cost Mischarging Prevention Plan: 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.

4.3.4. Total Evaluated Price: The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes using the total price proposed for fixed-price CLINs and the Probable Cost (PC) for cost type CLINs for all 7 years (5 year base and one 2 year option) plus 50% of the FY 2028

CLIN value (for purposes of evaluating the potential cost of an extension under 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services). The offeror's proposed estimated costs for Cost CLINs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes.

4.3.5. Cost Realism: A cost realism analysis will be performed IAW FAR 15.404-1(d).

The 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 IAW FAR 15.404-

1(d)(1). A PC will be assessed. The PC reflects the Government's best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the offeror's proposal. The PC 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 an offeror's proposal to be unrealistic, the PC will be included as part of the TEP and shall be used in the evaluation to determine best value. The combination of the proposed price (Fixed Price

CLINs) and the PC (Cost CLINs) will form the TEP.

4.3.6. Options: Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

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

M-5 EVALUATION FACTORS: Volume IV – Administrative Documents

5.1. 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.

5.2. 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.

5.3. 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.