L-02_-_EWOCS_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 whose proposal offers the best value 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.

If the Offeror attempts to identify proposal “strengths”, the Government reserves the right to accept or not accept the Offeror’s assessment of strengths. Offerors are hereby notified that any strengths identified by the Government will be incorporated into the resulting contract. The awarded contract will reflect any beneficial and/or advantageous aspects of the awardee’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements.

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

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

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.

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.

2.2.2.4. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to perform video operations, operate and maintain visual imagery and intrusion detection systems, and operate and maintain access control and alarm systems.

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.

2.2.2.6. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to staff and operate a Communications Focal Point (CFP) 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 CFP.

2.2.3. Subfactor 2 (Adjectival): Program Management: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to Program Management. The standard is met when program management services are distinguished by location (45 SW, 30 SW, and MDA) and:

2.2.3.1. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to manage comprehensive communications services from traditional operations to dynamic requirements (which include launch environment and MDA communications services). The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to be fully operational in those areas specified in PWS Appendix A, Communications Systems and Services Matrix on day one of full performance of the contract.

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 flexibility to manage fluctuating and evolving workload 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.

Additionally, the proposed approach meets the staffing requirements specified within the workload factors in PWS Appendix A, Communication Systems and

Services Matrix, for Dynamic Communications Services and MDA

Communications Services.

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.

2.2.3.4. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to prepare, maintain, and report traceability of costs showing linkage between the Contractor

Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) (to the fourth level), CLIN, PWS, and labor categories.

2.2.4. Subfactor 3 (Adjectival): Dynamic Communications Services: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to Dynamic Communications Services. The standard is met when:

2.2.4.1. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to accurately estimate and complete surge requirements, unplanned overtime work for emergencies, and prioritized work as required by Task Orders.

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).

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.

2.2.4.4. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to perform communication configurations and system checks and to coordinate interfaces before and during launch and mission operations.

2.2.5. Subfactor 4 (Adjectival): MDA Communications Services: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to MDA Communications Services. The standard is met when:

2.2.5.1. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to provide responsiveness to operations & maintenance, sustainment, and configuration management support to communications systems.

2.2.5.2. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to perform unique MDA vulnerability management and A&A via the RMF process.

Specifically addresses the risk and mitigation of performing these cybersecurity requirements amidst conflicting priorities between real-world missile defense and cybersecurity Authorizing Official (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 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 the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence 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. Rating is based on present/past performance citation that is similar to the scope, magnitude, and complexities when the citation meets the criteria listed below for each subfactor (Eastern Western Communications Services, Program Management, Eastern Range Dynamic Communications Services, and MDA Communications Services). *The Magnitude per Government Fiscal Year requirement can be met by the accumulation of the 3 Program Management citation submissions. All other requirements have to be met by a single subfactor citation submission.

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 to include Comm Focal

Point (CFP) for Air Force base activities with

5000+ users

Magnitude at least $20M per Government FY in communication requirements supporting

DoD customers*

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

Federal Government

Agencies/Activities with

3500+ users

Magnitude at least $10M per Government FY in communication requirements supporting

Federal Government customers* complex comm requirements in a dynamic, high ops tempo environment complex comm requirements in a dynamic, high ops tempo environment

And And And And

Install, operate, maintain unclassified and classified networks for complex Federal

Government Agency infrastructure

Managing requirements on a single contract across geographically separated locations and overseeing activities of subcontractors innovative communication solutions 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 to include CFP for

Federal Government

Agencies/Activities with

2000+ users

Magnitude at least $5M per Government FY in communication requirements supporting

Federal Government customers* comm requirements in a dynamic, high ops tempo comm requirements in a dynamic, high ops tempo

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 Preliminary Cost/Price Data Proposal will be evaluated to assist in determining the initial competitive range, and the Complete

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 Preliminary Cost/Price and Complete 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. Due With Initial Submission: Preliminary 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 (paragraph 4.2.1.), and balance (paragraph 4.2.2.) to assist with determining the competitive range.

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.

4.3. Due With Initial EN Submission: Complete Cost/Price Proposal:

For each offeror in the competitive range, the Government will evaluate the 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. Should an Offeror taken any exception to the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the Offerors must clearly identify any such exception(s) to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale to explain why it is taking said exception(s).

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.

5.4. Mission Essential Contractor Services

The Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan IAW DFARS 252.237-7023 and

DFARS 252.237-7024 will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation and the PWS.