Attachment_2_-_Section_M.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FA3002-20-R-0002, SERE Training Support Services

Section J – Attachment 2

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. GENERAL INFORMATION

M.1.1. Basis for contract award. This is a competitive, best value, subjective Performance Price

Tradeoff (PPT) source selection that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) Part

215.3, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315.3, and the

Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures. The Offeror’s proposal shall include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by

Section L. A proposal that omits information may be excluded from further consideration. The

Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. Evaluation factors are comprised of: (1) Past Performance, (2) Technical Capability, and (3) Price.

M.1.1.1. The Government will utilize the PPT evaluation methodology whereby Past Performance may be traded for Price if, following an evaluation of Technical Capability, the proposal is determined to be "Technically Acceptable". This may result in an award being made to a higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA determines that the past performance superiority of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

M.1.1.1.1. The Government will evaluate past performance first. An Offeror that is determined to have a Performance Confidence rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” will not be considered for award, nor will the Government evaluate Price or Technical for any Offeror rated as having “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence”.

M.1.1.1.2. The Government will simultaneously evaluate Price and Technical Capability for

Offerors determined to have a Performance Confidence rating of "Substantial Confidence", “Satisfactory Confidence”, or “Neutral Confidence”. If one Offeror meets the criteria of having a

"Substantial Confidence" rating, the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), and is determined to be

“Technically Acceptable”, that Offeror represents the best value to the Government and award will be made to that Offeror.

M.1.1.1.3. The Government may trade up from a Performance Confidence rating of “Neutral

Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence”, resulting in an award being made to a higher priced

“Technically Acceptable” Offeror, if that Offeror’s proposal is determined to represent the best value to the Government by the SSA.

M.1.1.2. A contract will be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.104 as supplemented, and whose:

(1) Proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements;

(2) All proposed technical subfactors receive “Acceptable” ratings;

(3) Proposal receives a Performance Confidence assessment rating of “Substantial Confidence”, “Satisfactory Confidence”, or “Neutral Confidence”;

(4) Proposed Price is determined fair and reasonable; and

(5) Proposal is determined by the SSA to represent the best value to the Government.

M.1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government will award a single Firm-Fixed-

Price (FFP) Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract for Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) Training Support Services.

M.2. AWARD WITH DISCUSSIONS

M.2.1. Competitive Range. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. In order to conduct discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. If the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines and the SSA agrees 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

PCO with the SSA’s approval 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.

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. If the PCO determines and the SSA agrees that an Offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision will be provided to unsuccessful Offeror(s) IAW FAR

15.503(a)(1). Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request and receive a Preaward Debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or a Postaward Debriefing after receiving notification of contract award IAW FAR 15.506. NOTE: Offerors excluded or removed from the competitive range are entitled to a single debriefing IAW FAR 15.505(a)(3).

M.2.2. Discussions. IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the

Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the PCO later determines it to be in the best interest of the Government.

Offerors shall submit the required information in the format specified in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their technical, past performance, or price volumes. Exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will not constitute discussions, and the PCO reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal.

M.2.2.1. If discussions are held, 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 will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.3. Evaluation Factors for Award. Evaluation of offers will be made IAW the criteria outlined in this section. The proposals will be evaluated against the following three (3) factors:

Volume I/Factor I: Past Performance

Volume II/Factor II: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Mobilization Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating)

Subfactor 2: Staffing Strategy (Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating)

Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating)

Volume III/Factor III: Price

M.3.1. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. Technical will be evaluated on an

Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, and Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.

However, Price is a substantial factor in the selection decision. All Technical Subfactors are equal in importance. An Offeror must be rated Acceptable in all three (3) Technical subfactors, have a

“Neutral”, “Satisfactory Confidence” or “Substantial Confidence” rating, and Price must be determined fair and reasonable to be eligible for award.

M.4. Volume I/Factor I – Past Performance

M.4.1. The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the Offeror has performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an

Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The Offeror’s past performance efforts will be assessed for three categories: Recency, Relevancy, and Performance Quality.

M.4.1.2. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. The Government will only evaluate performance quality on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

The Government reserves the right to use the information provided in the Offeror’s past performance proposal volume and may also use information obtained from other sources available to the Government. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

M.4.2. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the five years preceding the date of issuance of this RFP, to include at least one year of documented performance during the five-year period. Only performance that occurred during the five-year period prior to issuance of the RFP will be considered (i.e., if a contract has been performed for more than five years prior to the issuance of the RFP, past performance that occurred outside the five years prior to issuance of the RFP will not be considered). Contract performance that does not meet these criteria will not be evaluated.

M.4.3. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct a thorough evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, greater consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort related to SERE and Evasion Conduct After Capture (ECAC) comparable to the PWS requirements in terms of scope, magnitude, and complexity. The Government may give greater weight to performance on contracts deemed more relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. The Government will use the following DoD Source Selection Procedures relevancy definitions:

RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

Rating Description

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.

M.4.4. Performance Quality Assessment. The performance quality assessment consists of an evaluation of past performance information available on recent and relevant efforts, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information.

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. Offerors will be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

The quality assessment performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, it gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The following ratings will be used to define the quality of submitted past performance.

PERFORMANCE

/ QUALITY

RATING

DEFINITION

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements. The performance of the element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area is not applicable to the effort assessed.

M.4.5. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated Performance

Confidence Assessment Rating. The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating represents the overall evaluation of contractor past performance. An Offeror 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, 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. Likewise, a more relevant, favorable past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record or less favorable performance.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Performance Confidence Assessment, below:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

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

NO CONFIDENCE

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

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE (UNKNOWN)

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.

M.5. VOLUME II/FACTOR II – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

M.5.1. The Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for each subfactor.

Any technical subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY RATING METHOD

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.5.2. Subfactor 1 – Mobilization Plan. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s mobilization plan.

The Offeror has met the requirement for an acceptable mobilization plan when the proposed plan meets the following:

Subfactor 1 – Mobilization Plan

Instructions to Offeror Evaluation Criteria

L.4.3.1 Provide a detailed mobilization plan that addresses recruiting, training, certifying, and qualifying personnel during the one-month mobilization period that results in sufficient numbers of fully qualified employees. Provide a graphical time-line schedule that addresses start and completion of each event (e.g., interviewing, hiring, human resource actions, training, badging and start work dates).

M.5.2.1. Provided a detailed mobilization plan that adequately addressed recruiting, training, certifying, and qualifying personnel during the one-month mobilization period that results in sufficient numbers of fully qualified employees; including graphical time-line that addresses start and completion of each event

(e.g., interviewing, hiring, human resource actions, training, and start work dates).

L.4.3.2. Provide a comprehensive method for completing Human Factors Evaluations to ensure all employees that will have contact with students in a training atmosphere have been properly screened, IAW PWS 5.9.2.

M.5.2.2. Provided a reasonable and effective comprehensive method for completing

Human Factors Evaluations, ensuring all employees that will have contact with students in a training atmosphere have been properly screened.

L.4.3.3. Provide process for ensuring all employees performing on this contract possess a current SECRET clearance prior to performing services and the contractor possesses a current industrial clearance IAW

PWS 6.4 and 7.1.

M.5.2.3. Provided a reasonable and effective process for ensuring that all employees performing services on this contract possess a current SECRET clearance prior to starting work. The Offeror also provided verification of current industrial clearance.

L.4.3.4. Provide a detailed strategy for recruiting (both locally and nationally), interviewing, hiring, training, qualifying, and certifying employees.

M.5.2.4. Provided a detailed strategy for recruiting (both locally and nationally), interviewing, hiring, training, qualifying, and certifying employees that will enable the

Offeror to provide a sufficient number of fully qualified employees, effectively facilitating full performance at completion of the mobilization period.

L.4.3.5. Describe how the Offeror plans to successfully locate and hire a minimum of two female instructors for the Resistance

Training Lab IAW PWS 2.2.1.

M.5.2.5. Described a reasonable and effective strategy for successfully locating and hiring a minimum of two female instructors for the

Resistance Training Lab.

L.4.3.6. Describe how the Offeror plans to successfully locate and hire a Dive Master for the Water Survival Training courses IAW

PWS 2.3.

M.5.2.6. Described a reasonable and effective strategy for successfully locating and hiring a

Dive Master for the Water Survival Training courses.

L.4.3.7. Describe how the Offeror plans to successfully locate and hire a CSEL PM IAW

PWS 2.2.3.

M.5.2.7. Described a reasonable and effective strategy for successfully locating and hiring a

CSEL PM.

L.4.3.8. Describe how the Offeror plans to successfully locate and hire an S-V70-A

Training Manager IAW PWS 2.7.1.

M.5.2.8. Described a reasonable and effective strategy for successfully locating and hiring an S-V70-A Training Manager.

L.4.3.9. Provide an approach to ensure that all employees that will perform services on this contract possess the required clothing and equipment necessary to perform services IAW

PWS 5.10 and Appendix D.

M.5.2.9. Provided a reasonable and effective approach ensuring all employees that will perform services on this contract possess the required clothing and equipment necessary to perform services.

M.5.3. Subfactor 2 – Staffing Strategy. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s approach for structuring and staffing personnel to effectively accomplish the services under this contract. The

Offeror has met the requirement for an acceptable Staffing Strategy when the following is met:

Subfactor 2 – Staffing Strategy

L.4.4.1. Present a graphical organizational structure, including charts, with descriptions of proposed roles, responsibilities, and relationships for all organizational elements.

Address mission coverage for all contract periods and provide a coverage plan for all positions.

M.5.3.1. Successfully presented a graphical organizational structure, including charts, which delivers sufficient rationale for proposed roles, responsibilities, and relationships for all organizational elements.

Adequately addressed mission coverage for all contract periods and provided an acceptable coverage plan for all positions.

L.4.4.2. Identify and demonstrate that employees shall have the training, experience

M.5.3.2. Clearly identified and demonstrated that employees shall have the relevant and qualifications to instruct and/or manage the services for which they will be responsible, IAW PWS 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6 and 6.7.

training, experience and qualifications to effectively instruct and/or manage the services for which they will be responsible.

L.4.4.3. Provide a detailed plan to provide

Site Managers and Alternate Site Mangers at each location.

M.5.3.3. Provided an acceptable, detailed plan for providing Site Managers and

Alternate Site Mangers at each location.

L.4.4.4. Provide the number of full-time and part-time equivalents utilized and the rationale with calculations for this number based on workload projections provided in the

PWS.

M.5.3.4. Provided an adequate full-time and part-time equivalents approach and appropriate rationale with calculations for the number of full-time and part-time equivalents based on workload projections provided in the

PWS.

L.4.4.5. Provide a complete staffing/skill (job classification)/manpower matrix to accomplish service requirements, including plans and rationale for personnel utilization

(full-time, part-time, temporaries, personal time off, leave, sick leave, Guard/Reserve duty, etc.) and duties for all personnel the

Offeror plans to employ.

M.5.2.5. Provided a sufficient, complete staffing/skill (job classification)/manpower matrix to accomplish service requirements, including acceptable plans and rationale for personnel utilization (full-time, part-time, temporaries, personal time off, leave, sick leave, Guard/Reserve duty, etc.) and duties for all personnel the Offeror plans to employ.

L.4.4.6. Provide an approach for limiting employee turn-over and sustaining trained, qualified and technically capable personnel throughout the life of the contract.

M.5.2.6. Provided a reasonable and effective approach that limits employee turn-over and sustains trained, qualified and technically capable personnel throughout the life of the contract.

L.4.4.7. Identify “one-deep” positions on the organizational chart and explain the plan for backing up these positions.

M.5.3.7. Adequately identified “one-deep” positions on the organizational chart and sufficiently explained the plan for backing up these positions.

L.4.4.8. Demonstrate effective cross-utilization of personnel. The proposal must detail percentage of workforce that will be cross-utilized, while maintaining required skill mix and staffing levels.

M.5.3.8. Adequately demonstrated an effective cross-utilization of personnel. The proposal sufficiently detailed percentage of workforce that will be cross-utilized, while maintaining required skill mix and staffing levels.

L.4.4.9. Explain how a fluctuation in student load will be managed to ensure required student-to-instructor ratios are met.

M.5.3.9. Provided a reasonable and effective explanation for how fluctuations in student loads will be managed to ensure required student-to-instructor ratios are met.

M.5.4. Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s approaches and processes to effectively measure, track, analyze, report, and implement corrective actions at the sites specified in the RFP. The Quality Control Plan submitted in response to this subfactor shall address performance standards, control of information and physical security. The Offeror has met the requirement for an acceptable Quality Control Plan when the proposed plan meets the following:

Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan

L.4.5.1. Present a Quality Control Plan for your organization, including lines of authority, and provide a proposal that will successfully evaluate compliance, find and document problems, and monitor corrective actions ensuring successful and timely problem resolution. Explain how recurring problems will be prevented.

M.5.3.1. Presented a sufficient Quality

Control Plan, including lines of authority, and provided a reasonable and effective proposal that will successfully evaluate compliance, find and document problems, and monitor corrective actions, ensuring successful and timely problem resolution while adequately explaining how recurring problems will be prevented.

L.4.5.2. Describe a system for recording, computing/assessing performance measurement data, and monitoring corrective actions to ensure successful and timely problem resolution.

M.5.3.2. Described a reasonable and effective system process that is sufficient for recording, computing/assessing performance measurement data, and monitoring corrective actions to ensure successful and timely problem resolution.

L.4.5.3. Describe the documents and records your company will develop, maintain, and utilize as part of the Quality Control Plan.

M.5.3.3. Adequately described the documents and records that will be developed, maintained, and utilized as part of the Quality

Control Plan.

L.4.5.4. Describe the method for gathering information, evaluating performance based on the requirements of the PWS, and reporting the results to the Government Contracting

Officer Representative.

M.5.3.4. Described a reasonable and effective method for gathering information, evaluating performance based on the requirements of the

PWS, and reporting the results to the

Government Contracting Officer

Representative.

L.4.5.5. Present examples of how the Offeror has successfully implemented quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements.

L.5.3.5. Presented adequate examples of how they have successfully implemented quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements.

L.4.5.6. Demonstrate an approach that ensures instructors assigned to this contract complete a recognized academic instructor course listed in the AETCI 36-2604 Section

2.2.

M.5.3.6. Demonstrated a reasonable and effective approach that ensures instructors assigned to this contact complete the recognized academic instructor course(s) listed in the AETCI 36-2604 Section 2.2.

L.4.5.7. Describe how the Offeror’s employees will remain up-to-date on changes within the SERE community in regards to tactics, training, and procedures.

M.5.2.7. Described a reasonable and effective way for how employees will remain up-to-date on changes within the SERE community in regards to tactics, training, and procedures.

L.4.5.8. Describe the Offeror’s system for documenting instructor currency, performance evaluations, and performance deficiencies. The Offeror shall also describe the tools and methods of evaluation, to include the number of tasks planned per evaluator and frequency.

M.5.3.8. Adequately described a reasonable and effective system for documenting instructor currency, performance evaluations, and performance deficiencies. The Offeror also adequately described reasonable and effective tools and methods of evaluation, to include the number of tasks planned per evaluator and frequency.

M.6. Volume III/Factor III – Price Evaluation

M.6.1. The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal as described below. Any other data provided by the Offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated.

M.6.2. Price Reasonableness. The price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by Section L, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair, reasonable and balanced IAW FAR 15.404. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The price proposed should correspond to efforts described in the technical proposal; therefore, a very low price may be considered unreasonable.

M.6.2.1. The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques IAW FAR

15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness: comparison of proposed prices received;

comparison of proposed prices to previous Government and commercial contract prices for the same or similar services; use of parametric estimating methods/rough yardsticks; comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices; comparison with Independent Government Cost

Estimates; comparison with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar services; and/or analysis of pricing information provided by the Offeror.

M.6.2.2. In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR

15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.6.2.3. If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness, or, if the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the PCO may request submission of certified cost or pricing data (or data other than certified cost or pricing data), as appropriate, and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in

FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

M.6.3. TEP. A TEP will be presented to the SSA for award decision purposes. The Pricing Model

(Section J Attachment 7) will calculate the Offeror’s TEP for all FFP CLINs. The TEP will not include the Not-To-Exceed cost-reimbursable CLINs. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed TEP. NOTE: The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional 6 months beyond the awarded contract performance period. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for the 4-year Basic Ordering Period and the 2-year Option Ordering Period will suffice to be the Government’s evaluation of prices under the extension of services (ref. 52.217-8). Should an extension of services be required, rates will be adjusted only as result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates.

M.7. Responsibility Determination. Responsibility Information is not an evaluation factor.

However, a contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR

9.104. The Contracting Officer may use any sources available to support their determination of an Offeror’s responsibility or non-responsibility, to include, but not be limited to, Volume III

(Price) information, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee-Determining Officials; and the

Defense Contract Management Agency.