Attachment 20_Revised3 - Section M Evaluation Criteria For Award.pdf

Attachment 20_Revised3 dated 29 Apr 2020

SECTION M, Evaluation Criteria For Award

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

M.1.0 Introduction.

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposals for the SABER contract. The Government will compare each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against predetermined measures of merit related to the Government's requirement defined herein.

M.2.0 Basis for Contract Award.

This is a competitive, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection, with technical acceptability, for 8(a) companies within the Mid-Atlantic region that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at, https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations. For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price. Past Performance is significantly more important than price. 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 and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference. While the Government evaluation team will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. In order to be considered for award, the Offeror must be determined responsible (as described in FAR 9.104), meet all solicitation requirements (including terms and conditions), be technically acceptable, be assessed a past performance confidence rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial”, and have a price that is complete, balanced, fair and reasonable.

M.3.0. Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation.

https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations

M.4.0. Evaluation Process.

M.4.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

M.4.1.1. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: JBA Demonstration/Seed Project Subfactor 2: Management Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price (Coefficients)

M.4.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors.

The Technical Factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. All Subfactors within Technical are of equal importance and will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, past performance is more important than price. Past performance, when combined with technical factor(s), is significantly more important than price; however, price contributes to the selection decision.

M.4.2. Evaluation Steps.

The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. Proposals will be evaluated using the following evaluation process steps:

Step 1 – Proposal Adequacy: The Government will review proposals for completeness (adhering to all information/instructions). If an Offeror fails to comply with instructions in the Instructions to Offerors (ITO), the Offeror’s proposal may be deemed incomplete and will receive no further consideration and be eliminated from the competition. The Government will only evaluate proposals deemed complete.

Step 2 - Factor 1, Technical: The Government will evaluate all complete proposals for technical acceptability. A rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be assigned for each subfactor.

All subfactors must be deemed “Acceptable” for Factor 1 to be deemed “Acceptable”. To be eligible for award, an Offeror must receive an “Acceptable” rating for Factor 1. Only proposals determined “Acceptable” on Factor 1 will proceed to be evaluated for Factor 2. Proposals determined “Unacceptable” for Factor 1 will receive no further consideration.

Step 3 - Factor 2, Past Performance: The Government will evaluate all technically “Acceptable” Offeror’s past performance submissions. The past performance evaluation will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2), the government will consider currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). Each past performance submission will be determined as recent or not recent. Then, each recent past performance submission will receive a relevancy rating. Next, each recent and relevant past performance submission will receive a quality rating. As a result of recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the individual contracts evaluated an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating will be assigned to the Past Performance Factor. Only Offeror’s with a past performance confidence rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial” will move on to Step 4 to be evaluated under Factor 3, Price. Any proposals receiving a confidence rating below “Satisfactory” for Factor 2 will receive no further consideration.

Step 4 - Factor 3: Price (Coefficients). The proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be evaluated for completeness, balance and fair and reasonableness.

M.4.3. Competitive Range.

The Government reserves the right to limit, for purposes of efficiency, the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). If the contracting officer decides that an Offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision shall be provided to the unsuccessful Offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503.

M.4.4. Discussions.

(a) The Government reserves the right to award without discussions and make an award based on initial proposals; as such, Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (less than 24 hours) in responding to the contracting officer.

(b) 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 offer revision.

(c) If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, a competitive range will be determined and the Offeror’s 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. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their offer (for example: the relevance of past/present performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. If, upon submission of the FPR, an Offeror materially changes their proposal such that the price is no longer fair and reasonable or sufficient to keep them among the most highly rated Offerors or other factor inputs change their ranking among other Offerors, the Offeror may be removed from consideration for award.

M.4.5. Final Proposal Revisions.

If discussions are conducted, FPRs will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP. However, the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions, in which case, FPRs will not be required.

Offerors are advised that unsupported FPRs may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy.

M.4.6. Correction Potential of Proposals.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or proposal inadequacy. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

M.5.0. Evaluation Factors.

M.5.1. FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s technical proposal, based on the subfactors listed below, to determine if the Offeror’s technical proposal demonstrates a sound approach and a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the SABER SOW requirements and solicitation.

All Subfactors within Technical are of equal importance and will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” Basis, as defined in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Technical Assessment

Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Note: All subfactors must receive an Acceptable rating for Factor 1, Technical to be deemed Acceptable. An offer with an Unacceptable rating in one or more subfactors will be given an overall rating of Unacceptable for Factor 1 - Technical and will not be eligible for award.

M.5.1.1. Technical Subfactor 1: JBA Demonstration/Seed Project. To be determined acceptable, a proposal must contain all the elements required by the JBA Demonstration/Seed Project and meet the following minimum standards.

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach contained within their proposal. The Offeror shall demonstrate a complete and thorough understanding of the seed project SOW by utilizing accurate project phasing, describing an effective and sound process for interfacing with the government team throughout the project life cycle and demonstrating an adequate set of processes and procedures detailing how the Offeror will execute all work diligently without any unnecessary or unauthorized delays, breaks or deviations from the Contract Progress Schedule (AF Form 3064) to include completion of punch listed work items, as required by SABER SOW paragraph 4 and/or subsequent modifications. [Note: This paragraph corresponds with RFP Section L paragraph L.3.2.1.a.]

b. The Offeror will be evaluated on the accuracy and completeness of the Computer Aided Drafting and Design (CADD) Drawings ensuring they meet the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format described in paragraph 3.2.1.1 and Technical Exhibit 5 of the SABER SOW and in RFP Section L paragraphs L.3.2.1.b. and L.3.2.1.d. IAW SABER SOW Technical Exhibit 5, the CSI narrative format must be specific, descriptive and completely convey the appropriate design methodology. [Note: This paragraph corresponds with RFP Section L paragraph L.3.2.1.b. and L.3.2.1.d.]

c. Construction Work Schedule (CWS): The CWS will be evaluated on the Offeror’s ability to develop a GANTT chart that lays out an appropriate critical path and set of milestones that accurately captures the preparatory and major line items required to perform the project, and effectively reflects an accurate overall period of performance required to complete the task order.

Per paragraph 3.2.1.10 of the SABER SOW, as a minimum, the CWS milestones shall accurately reflect project phasing, construction/phase/multiple facility start date(s), utility outages, major equipment deliveries and installations, tests, proposed Beneficial Occupancy and Final Inspection date(s) and equipment training. Design analysis calculations, if required in the Seed Project, shall be IAW SABER SOW Paragraphs 3.4 and 3.4.1-3.4.5. [Note: This paragraph corresponds with RFP Section L paragraphs L.3.2.1.c.]

d. The Offeror will be evaluated on the completeness of the Schedule of Material Submittals (AF Form 66) reflecting an accurate accounting of all proposed materials and required contract documents to execute the seed project. [Note: This paragraph corresponds with RFP Section L paragraphs L.3.2.1.e.]

M.5.1.2. Technical Subfactor 2, Management Approach:

a. The proposed Management Plan shall describe an effective approach that effectively minimizes technical, cost, and schedule risks during the course of simultaneously managing requirements from design through construction to completion for two geographically separated locations (JBA and JBAB) under short, time-critical deadlines. [This corresponds to Section L, paragraph L.3.2.2.a.(1)]

b. The proposed Management Plan shall clearly address the (1) appropriate number of key personnel, and(2) shall demonstrate key personnel meet the required minimum certifications, education and experience (IAW SABER SOW paragraphs 2.1.1, 2.1.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2) and (3) have the commensurate authority required to effectively manage the Basic IDIQ and provide oversight of the Project Manager(s), Construction Manager(s) and the remaining workforce in the execution of execute task orders for JBA and JBAB. The plan shall also include a realistic recruitment and retention approach that ensures an experienced workforce (including all levels of management – Program Manager, Project Manager(s), Construction Manager(s) and Quality Control Manager), with the required experience and authority (IAW SABER SOW paragraphs 2.1.1, 2.1.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2), are recruited, hired, trained and retained over the life of the contract and shall describe an adequate process to maintain currency of required certifications and/or specialized training. [This corresponds to Section L, paragraph L.3.2.2.a.(2) and L.3.2.2.a.(3)]

c. The proposed Staffing Plan shall demonstrate the offeror can rapidly obtain additional subcontractor support and augment existing in-house and key personnel to effectively execute and manage multi-discipline task orders (maintaining high quality workmanship and minimizing cost, schedule and technical risks) in a highly compressed time frame while also executing a 20- 30% surge workload during the 3rd Quarter of the fiscal year (FY21 through end of the contract).

d. The Mobilization and Phase-In plan shall demonstrate an effective strategy and methodology for ensuring a seamless transition IAW SABER SOW paragraph 3. SABER SOW paragraph 3 states:

(1) The Offeror shall be fully capable of executing additional task orders within sixty (60) calendar days after award of the Basic IDIQ and

(2) be fully operational with all required facilities, staff and automated data processing (ADP) capability within ninety (90) calendar days after award of the Basic IDIQ.

(3) In addition, the Offeror’s Mobilization and Phase-In plan shall demonstrate the Offeror has an effective strategy and methodology for ensuring execution of the Seed project by 23 Sep 2020, assuming a 15 Aug 2020 award date for the Basic IDIQ and a 16 Sep 2020 award date for the Seed Project.

M.5.2. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE.

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. 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, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

The Government will evaluate past performance submissions for recency, relevancy, and quality.

Each past performance submission will be determined as recent or not recent. Then, each recent past performance submission will receive a relevancy rating. Next, each recent and relevant past performance submission will be assessed for quality. As a result of recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the individual contracts evaluated an overall Past Performance Evaluation Rating will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. Only Offeror’s with a Past Performance rating of “Satisfactory” or “Substantial” will be considered eligible for award. Any proposals receiving a past performance evaluation rating below “Satisfactory” for Factor 2 will not be eligible for award.

The Offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly identifies and supports recency, relevancy, and quality based on the following definitions:

5.2.1. Recency.

An evaluation of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent.

Recency is defined as active contract performance during the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance as of five (5) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. If a contract reference is determined recent (had some or all active performance in the five (5) years preceding the solicitation issuance date), and had active performance prior to the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation, the Government may evaluate the Offerors' performance record during the entire contract period. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort.

5.2.2 Relevancy.

a. The Government will conduct an in depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

b. Specifically, relevant is defined as contracts of similar size, scope, and magnitude, involving the type of construction and work elements described in the solicitation and attached SABER SOW and Specifications. Relevant past performance project work elements include projects involving Sustainment, Repair, Modernization (SRM), renovation, modernization, alteration and repair, additions and upgrades, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical, mechanical, and other major trades. Relevant contracts that include work performed concurrently at geographically separate locations, work on a military installation or experience as a prime contractor and/or joint venture involving Job Order Contracting (JOC), Single Award Task Order Contracts (SATOC), Multiple Award Task Order Contracts (MATOC) and SABER construction contracts will be considered "More Relevant."

c. Offerors shall provide adequate past performance information on completed or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and commercial) considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed work as identified within the SABER SOW.

Offerors are required to explain what aspects of each contract are deemed relevant to complexity and magnitude as related to the requirements of this solicitation and in accordance with Section M. Failure to provide required relevancy description may impact the confidence rating, (i.e.

aspects of previous projects should match work elements identified in the solicitation/specification).

d. 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 reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the below table of relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table 2. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

Rating Definition

VERY

RELEVANT

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

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

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

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

NOT

RELEVANT

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

5.2.3. Quality Assessment.

For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services and the work performed will be assessed. The Government will consider information from Present and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and other Government resources on how well the Offeror performed on past contract citations (including general trends) and other contracts that are available from other Government sources.

5.2.4 Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings.

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 Price Factor, taking into consideration their relative order of importance as stated in paragraph M.4.1.2. IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2), the government will consider currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance. This evaluation of the recent contracts will result in Offerors receiving an integrated performance confidence assessment rating, as defined in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3. PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

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.

In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. 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.

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. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

M.5.3. FACTOR 3 – PRICE (COEFFICIENTS).

5.3.1. Coefficients and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

The evaluation of price will be based primarily on each Offeror’s proposed coefficient(s). The “Total Evaluated Price” will be based on a weighted composite coefficient rate using the following mathematical computation. The Offerors' proposed coefficients for each CLIN in the "Bid Schedule" under Section B of this solicitation shall be multiplied by the percentages stated in the “Price Evaluation Worksheet (Section J, Attachment 13)” (examples in Tables 4 and 5 below consist of weighting based on historical and estimated workload). Note: In these tables, all prices will be rounded up to the nearest whole dollar when selecting a coefficient range

Table 4. JBA COEFFICIENT STRUCTURE EXAMPLE

Contract Line Item

Item Description Coefficient Ranges

0001AA

1001AA

2001AA

Standard Hours, $2,000.00 - $349,999.99

0.799

0001AB

1001AB

2001AB

Standard Hours, $350,000.00 - $700,000.00

0.899

0001AC

1001AC

2001AC

Work during non-standard working hours and/or work performed in secure areas

1.0

Table 5. JBAB COEFFICIENT STRUCTURE EXAMPLE

Contract Line Item

Item Description Coefficient Ranges

0001AA

0.729

0.989

1001AC

2001AC

Work during non-standard working hours and/or work performed in secure areas

1.039

As noted in Section L, paragraph L.5.1.c, the combined total of line item results after multiplying the weighted percentage will result in a weighted subtotal coefficient rate. The subtotal weighted coefficient rates will be transferred to the “Total Evaluated Price” tab in the attached Price Evaluation Worksheet (Section J, Attachment 13). There, the weighted coefficients shall be multiplied by the estimated aggregate total to get an evaluated total for each base. Then the evaluated total for each base will be added in the "Total Evaluated Price" tab for a TEP. Tables 6 and 7 are provided as an illustration of the weighted computation based on a fictitious set of coefficients and is only an example:

Table 6 JBA Weighted Coefficient Example CLIN Item Description Weight Proposed

Coefficient Weighted

Value Result

0001AA

65%

0.799

0.519

29%

0.899

0.261

1001AC

2001AC

Work during non-standard working hours and/or work performed in secure areas

6%

1.0

0.060

SUBTOTAL WEIGHTED COEFFICIENT RATE 0.840

Table 7 JBAB Weighted Coefficient Example CLIN Item Description Weight Proposed

Coefficient Weighted

Value Result

0001AA

75%

0.729

0.547

20%

0.989

0.198

1001AC

2001AC

Work during non-standard working hours and/or work performed in secure areas

5%

1.039

0.052

SUBTOTAL WEIGHTED COEFFICIENT RATE 0.797

M.5.3.2. Evaluation of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.

a. The solicitation and subsequent award for this acquisition contains the clause at FAR 52.217- 8, Option to Extend Services. This option to extend the contract term will be evaluated as part of the initial evaluation, whereby any resultant exercise of this option is within scope of the pending contract. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed six (6) months. Offerors are required only to price the base and option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six-month extension of services period.

b. The Government will evaluate the possible prices for FAR 52.217-8 through its evaluation of the base and option prices. If conditions warrant the exercise of this FAR 52.217-8, the price(s) for continued performance under this clause shall be at the same price(s) as awarded for the base period or the option period (whichever is being extended). As such, if the base and option prices are considered fair and reasonable then the cost of the possible extension of services under FAR 52.217-8 shall be considered fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the Government. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

5.3.3. TEP Evaluation.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal (TEP) for completeness, balance, and fair and reasonableness. Only proposals determined to be complete, balanced, and fair and reasonable will be eligible for award.

M5.3.3.1. Completeness.

The proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the priced elements have been addressed. The Offeror’s proposed price and other information will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical volume and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto.

M.5.3.3.3 Unbalanced Pricing.

The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether proposed prices are unbalanced pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(g). Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items, and option prices. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.5.3.3.2. Reasonableness.

IAW FAR 31.201-3 and 15.404-1, the Offeror’s TEP will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable. Pursuant to FAR 15.404-1, the Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation (adequate price competition). Adequate price competition is defined in FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(i)-(ii).

b. Comparison of the proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items.

c. The prior price must be a valid basis for comparison. If there has been a significant time lapse between the last acquisition and the present one, if the terms and conditions of the acquisition are significantly different, or if the reasonableness of the prior price is uncertain, then the prior price may not be a valid basis for comparison.

d. The prior price must be adjusted to account for materially differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors. For similar items, the contracting officer must also adjust the prior price to account for material differences between the similar item and the item being procured.

e. Expert technical advice should be obtained when analyzing similar items, or commercial items that are “of a type” or requiring minor modifications, to ascertain the magnitude of changes required and to assist in pricing the required changes

(1) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

(2) Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.

(3) Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

(4) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

f. The techniques described in paragraph M.5.3.3.2.a and M.5.3.3.2.b are the preferred techniques. However, if the contracting officer determines that information on competitive proposed prices or previous contract prices is not available or is insufficient to determine that the price is fair and reasonable, the contracting officer may use any of the remaining techniques as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.

M.6.0. Responsibility Determination.

Additional elements to be eligible for award are elements of evaluation in the source selection that relate to proposed terms and conditions, results of pre-award surveys and other reviews.

Since they are not directly tied to the specific evaluation areas, these additional elements do not receive a color/adjectival rating, proposal risk assessment or performance confidence assessment.

The following conditions shall be met in order to be eligible for award:

a. Determination of Offerors responsibility in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1.

b. The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the work requirements of the contract and may result in a determination that the proposal is unacceptable. The government does not assume a duty to search for clarification data to cure problems or inconsistencies with an Offeror’s proposal. The proposal must comply with requirements of law, regulation, and all conditions set forth in the solicitation.

c. 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.

d. A Pre-Award Survey (PAS) may be conducted 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.

M7.0 Non-Government Advisor.

This requirement uses a Non-Government Advisor. The Advisor listed below will assist in and provide input regarding the evaluation but may not determine ratings or ranking of Offeror’s proposals. The Non-Government Advisor will not be permitted access to an Offeror’s past performance information. However, the Advisor will be permitted access to the Offeror’s cost proposal for which the Advisor’s expertise is required in the evaluation. As required by DoD Source Selection Procedures, Section 1.4.6.2, the Non-Government Advisor shall complete a Non-Disclosure Agreement specific to this acquisition to be retained within the contract file. Completion of blocks 20A-C of the RFP, SF 1442 constitutes Offeror’s acceptance of the following:

Non-Government Advisor’s review of an Offeror’s proposal within the limitations listed above:

Anita Brown, Contractor Contract Specialist U.S. Federal Solutions, Inc.

8710 Cameron St.

Silver Springs, MD 20910 Telephone: 240-612-5673 anita.brown4.ctr@mail.mil mailto:anita.brown4.ctr@mail.mil