Attch 9 Section M - draft.docx

FA4610-27-R-0001

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO) subpart 15.2, Source Selection, and RFO 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, as supplemented by the Revised Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (R-DFARS) subpart 215.3, and the DoD Source Selection Procedures (20 Aug 2022). The RFO and the revised Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (R-DFARS) apply in full to the evaluation of proposals for this acquisition. To reflect these mandatory updates, all regulatory citations, evaluation procedures, and compliance guidance pertaining to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) are referenced throughout this evaluation factors document as "RFO," and all updates pertaining to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) are referenced as "R-DFARS." The RFO and R-DFARS shall take precedence if the DoD Source Selection Procedures conflict with those regulations. These regulations are available electronically at www.acquisition.gov

The Government intends to make a single award by selecting the Offeror, who is determined to be responsible IAW RFO 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, and its supplements, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is determined, based on the evaluation Factors and Subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government will perform the evaluation of the written proposals received and focus on the degree to which the entire proposal presents a concise, comprehensive, and convincing demonstration of the Offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the solicitation requirements. The burden of proof to demonstrate capability rests solely with the Offeror.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on a detailed assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation Factors/Subfactors, and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical approach/technical risk and past performance of the higher price offer outweighs the cost/price difference.

While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to Be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single contract for the Facilities Readiness and Maintenance Execution (FRAME) program. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award under this solicitation and may cancel the solicitation at any time prior to contract award without any liability to Offerors.

1.3 Negotiations

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold negotiations, 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 negotiations 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.

In determining whether a proposal is included in the competitive range, the Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and determine which proposals are best suited for further negotiation. In making that determination, the Government may consider the significance of identified deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and weaknesses in the context of the solicitation’s evaluation factors. Negotiations will be conducted in accordance with RFO 15.204-2. 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 SSA, 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

1.4 Mandatory Requirements and Proposal Acceptability

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, contract clauses, representations, certifications, acknowledgments, and other statements required by the solicitation, including those in Section K, 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. The Government may also reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic/unreasonable in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or unrealistically low in cost, such that the proposal is determined to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.5 Responsibility

No award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in RFO 9.104-1, and have an acceptable Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan, if applicable. The Contracting Officer may request Offerors to provide additional information to make a responsibility determination.

1.6 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

The Government will review the Offeror’s OCI Plan, if applicable, along with a completed OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist to ensure compliance with AFFARS 5352.209-9000 ALT I, II, III, IV & V for areas of potential conflicts. As discussed in Section L, Volume 5 (Contract Documentation), the resolution of OCI issues is considered as part of the Contracting Officer's contractor responsibility determination. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award. Comment by HARRISON, BRANDON C CIV USSF SSC SLD 30/PM: Contracting Compass has verbiage that may need to go into Section L pertaining to this reference, but doesn’t mention Section M. How should we update this reference?

https://usaf.dps.mil/sites/AFCC/AQCP/KnowledgeCenter/SitePages/DAF-Contracting-Compass/Part-9---Contractor-Qualifications.aspx#potential-oci-verbiage-mandatory

1.7 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. The Offeror shall be responsive to Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)or the 30th Contracting Squadron (30 CONS) for any pre-award surveys (e.g. including financial capability) as required by RFO 9.106-1(a).

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS: Volume 2 – Factor 1 – Technical

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

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

Initial Compliance Gate: Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Program Management (Adjectival) Subfactor 2: Maintenance and Repair (Adjectival) Subfactor 3: Pressure Vessels (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price The Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan will be evaluated first as an initial compliance gate. An Offeror receiving an Unacceptable rating will be ineligible for award, and the Government will not evaluate Factors 1-3. The evaluation criteria and Acceptable/Unacceptable rating definitions for the Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan are provided in paragraph 5.1.2 and Table 9.

2.2 Relative Importance

The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows: Factor 1 (Technical) is more important than Factor 2 (Past Performance), and Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3 (Cost/Price). When combined, all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price are more important than Cost/Price (IAW RFO 15.202(b)). Within Factor 1 (Technical), Subfactor 1 (Program Management) and Subfactor 2 (Maintenance and Repair) are equal in importance and will be evaluated using the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method. Subfactor 3 (Pressure Vessels) is evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis only and is not comparatively ranked against Subfactors 1 and 2.

2.3 Factor 1: Technical

This factor evaluates the quality of the Offeror's proposed technical solution in meeting the Government's requirements. An Offeror receiving a marginal or unacceptable rating in any one of the rated Technical Subfactors will not be eligible for award.

Technical Approach: The purpose is to assess the quality of the Offeror’s proposed approach and the extent to which it demonstrates an understanding of the requirements for each of the individual Technical subfactor evaluation criteria.

Associated Technical Risk: Considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Government will consider strengths Offerors note in their proposal and the Government will also consider aspects of the Offeror's technical proposal that may be advantageous to the Government as strengths. If the Offeror attempts to identify proposal "strengths", the Government reserves the right to accept or not accept the Offeror's assessment of strengths. The Government intends to incorporate evaluated strengths into the resulting contract, regardless of whether the Government has conducted negotiations on any or all strengths. Offerors are hereby notified that any strengths identified by the Government will be incorporated into the resulting contract. The awarded contract will reflect beneficial and/or advantageous aspects of the awardee's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements.

2.3.1 Rating Evaluations

For the Technical Factor, Subfactor 3 - Pressure Vessels will receive an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating as defined in Table 1. Subfactor 1 - Program Management and Subfactor 2 - Maintenance and Repair will each be assigned a combined technical/risk color and adjectival rating as listed in Table 2. The Combined Technical/Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement and takes into consideration strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies as deined in Table 3.

The Technical evaluation provides for a combined technical approach/capability and technical risk rating of each Technical subfactor. The Combined Technical/Risk Rating includes assessment of the technical approach/solution, associated technical solution risks as well as in conjunction with significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The combined technical/risk evaluation shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 2 and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 4. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical Factor.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Table 2. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS:

Table 3. RELEVANT DEFINITIONS

Table 4. TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

2.3.2 Subfactor 1: Program Management (Adjectival)

The criteria in this subfactor will be applied to evaluate the technical capability and risk of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach to performing Program Management as defined below.

2.3.2.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed organizational structure for management of contract performance is realistic and appropriate in relation to fulfilling Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and effectively assigns authority, responsibility, accountability, communication pathways necessary for contract performance. The evaluation will consider whether the proposed structure is a realistic management structure and reflects appropriate interfaces within the contractor organization and with Government and other external stakeholders. The Government will also evaluate whether the proposed structure is supported by, and consistent with, the BOE, including the proposed labor categories, labor hours, qualifications, staffing levels, and cross-utilization.

2.3.2.2 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed management processes and internal controls provide an effective method to meet contract requirements, including coordination with internal and external stakeholders; execution of contract actions within required timelines; providing status on contract execution, facility readiness and projects; delivering accurate billing information in support of contract performance. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s processes for staffing, training, and certifying personnel in response to increasing operational needs. The Government will further evaluate whether the staffing proposed in the BOE is necessary and sufficient to execute the Offeror’s proposed technical approach.

2.3.2.3 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a realistic, low-risk approach to assuming full operational responsibility at the end of the phase-in period in accordance with PWS Paragraph 8.1. The evaluation will consider whether the Phase-In Plan provides a logical, detailed, and executable timeline for mobilization, staff onboarding, training, observation, preparation of task order proposals, and other transition activities. The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the Phase-In Plan reflects effective contractor and Government communication pathways and an effective approach for onboarding and training personnel; and transferring facilities, Government-furnished property, systems, data, documentation, access requirements, required plans, and other resources necessary for full contract performance. In addition, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Phase-In Plan provides effective processes to manage transition risks. The Government will further evaluate whether the staffing proposed in the BOE is necessary and sufficient to execute the Offeror’s proposed technical approach.

2.3.2.4 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates a realistic and flexible method for adjusting management processes, work prioritization, and resource allocation in response to significant increases in launch tempo (from the current approximate rate of 100 launches per year up to a projected rate of 300 launches per year). The evaluation will focus on the quality and practicality of the Offeror’s ideas, tools, processes, or management techniques for maintaining facility readiness and minimizing disruption to maintenance and repair activities as launch frequency increases. The Government is not evaluating specific staffing numbers or quantitative manpower projections for higher launch rates; rather, it is assessing the soundness of the Offeror’s strategy for adapting operations. Approaches that propose particularly effective tools, processes, or management techniques that would beneficially address the challenges of higher launch tempo may be considered strengths.

2.3.3 Subfactor 2: Maintenance and Repair (Adjectival)

This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to Maintenance and Repair. The standard is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates the following capabilities:

2.3.3.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and lifecycle approach provides a convincing strategy to maximize equipment reliability and mitigate the risk of unplanned mission downtime. The evaluation will assess the soundness of the proposed Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) methodology to establish a balanced, cost-effective maintenance mix, and the degree to which integrating predictive technologies with the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) enables automated, data-driven decision-making. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the viability of the Offeror's obsolescence management strategy, assessing their capability to deliver accurate equipment life-cycle assessments, proactive replacement recommendations, and realistic Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimates that effectively support the Government's capital planning and budget forecasting. The Government will further evaluate whether the staffing proposed in the BOE is necessary and sufficient to execute the Offeror’s proposed technical approach

2.3.3.2 The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed Corrosion Prevention and Control strategy to protect critical infrastructure from rapid environmental degradation. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s quarterly inspection and planning workflow establishes a highly systematic, proactive method for identifying early-stage corrosion, and the extent to which the proposed Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan (Contract Data Requirements List [CDRL] A026) provides an actionable, data-driven roadmap for base-wide preservation. The Government will evaluate the technical suitability and rigor of the proposed surface preparation and coating application standards (e.g., SSPC, AMPP) to determine their adequacy in guaranteeing long-term coating durability and preventing premature environmental failures. Finally, the evaluation will assess the Offeror’s proposed strategy to identify and implement highest-value preservation measures that maximize structural lifespans and deliver the greatest long-term return on investment.

2.3.3.3 The Government will evaluate the proposed Work Order Management System approach to determine the effectiveness of the Offeror's processes and procedures for dynamic scheduling, status tracking, and closeout. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the dynamic scheduling and deconfliction workflows to maximize productivity and facility/system readiness. The evaluation will assess the degree to which the proposed approach utilizes proposed database features and analytical reporting tools to provide the Government with visibility into facility/system readiness, status of contractor operations and opportunities for efficiencies. Furthermore, the Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the contractor’s approach for interfacing with NextGenIT. Finally, the Government will evaluate the adequacy of cybersecurity protections and data integrity controls.

2.3.4 Subfactor 3: Pressure Vessels (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to Pressure Vessel support. The proposal will be rated Acceptable if the Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of and a credible plan to meet the following capabilities:

2.3.4.1 A safe, compliant, and technically sound approach to executing pressure vessel maintenance, testing, and certification in strict accordance with PWS Paragraph 4.12. The proposed approach must demonstrate a clear commitment to complying with Space Systems Command Manual (SSCMAN) 91-710, the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC), and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code. Additionally, the Offeror must present a viable internal process to ensure that all technicians and inspectors obtain and maintain all required technical credentials and certifications, alongside demonstrating the specific technical knowledge necessary to manage and maintain aging pressure vessel infrastructure.

2.3.4.2 An operationally realistic and technically adequate In-Service Inspection (ISI) program designed to monitor vessel integrity and sustain operational certifications. The proposed approach must detail an effective methodology for performing Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI) utilizing certified Level II (or equivalent) inspectors to analyze material degradation, track system thickness, and detect defect propagation. Finally, the Offeror must demonstrate a sound process showing how these inspection results and technical data will be compiled, analyzed, and managed to accurately update the certification schedule and satisfy all delivery requirements of the Pressure Vessel Inspection and Certification Plan (CDRL A027).

2.3.5 Appendix T1: Basis of Estimate (BOE)

The Basis of Estimate (BOE) is not an independent evaluation factor but will be used as a supporting document to substantiate the proposed technical approach. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s BOE demonstrates the criteria listed in the sub-paragraphs below. Any aspect of the BOE that fails to meet these criteria may be the basis for a Weakness or Significant Weakness under the associated Technical Subfactor. Conversely, a BOE that demonstrates a particularly effective or efficient approach that exceeds these criteria may be the basis for a Strength.

2.3.5.1 The Offeror's Base Year BOEs demonstrate a realistic, logical, and detailed understanding of the labor categories, skill levels, education, experience, and labor hours required to perform all PWS requirements, specifically matching the staffing levels proposed in the Cost/Price Workbook (Attachment L-3), demonstrating a realistic level of cross-utilization and overtime usage, and indicating that staffing levels are adequate to maintain critical skills and offset normal attrition and absence rates.

2.3.5.2 All proposed staffing changes and efficiencies for Ordering Years 2-9 are highly realistic, within the independent authority of the contractor to implement, reflected in and traceable to the corresponding Volume 4 - Factor 3 - Cost/Price proposal, and do not require a change in PWS requirements or Government operations.

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

3.1 Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. IAW RFO 15.202(c), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

3.1.1 Rating

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, as outlined in Table 5.

Table 5. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATING METHOD

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. In accordance with the submission instructions in Section L, this evaluation will be structured around the Offeror's submitted citations for the three technical subfactor areas: Program Management, Maintenance and Repair, and Pressure Vessel Support. 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.

· Evaluation Threshold: In alignment with Section L, past performance information will be evaluated only for the Prime Offeror and any subcontractor or teaming partner proposed to perform a minimum of 5% of the proposed contract value. Citations for subcontractors performing less than 5% of the proposed contract value will not be evaluated.

· Any mergers, acquisitions, or divestitures affiliated with an offeror will be reviewed and evaluated as part of that offeror's past performance, as applicable.

· For Offerors proposing as a joint venture and/or mentor-protégé joint venture, past performance reference citations submitted by any member of the joint venture will be evaluated for past performance relevancy, including for the Program Management subfactor.

· Offerors who submit past performance and experience information of a parent, sister, predecessor or other affiliated company must describe what involvement such company will have on this acquisition. The proposal should clearly indicate how the resources (its workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) of the affiliate company shall be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent, sister, predecessor or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.

· The Government will not consider citations for the Program Management subfactor from any company other than the prime Offeror unless the aforementioned in this paragraph applies.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate and/or on an individual contract basis. Multiple citations may collectively demonstrate complementary aspects of the required scope and complexity. However, separate citations will not be aggregated to satisfy any minimum dollar magnitude requirement in Table 7; each citation must independently meet that requirement.

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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; the DCMA, and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and or other Government officials with relevant knowledge of contract performance.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors 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. Clarifications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors related to past performance will not constitute negotiations and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

3.1.2.1 Recency Assessment

For the purpose of this source selection, recent present/past performance is defined as contracts performed within three (3) years from the issuance of this solicitation.

3.1.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts/citations relate to the Technical Subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to relevant efforts performed for other agencies of the federal, state or local governments and commercial customers. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for each citation, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, proposed to be performed by the company whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. In a teaming arrangement, only the prime Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated for relevancy for the Program Management subfactor except as provided in paragraph 3.1.2 for joint ventures, mentor-protégé joint ventures, and qualifying affiliate companies. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort or portion of the effort, proposed to be performed by the company whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Prime Contractor past performance will be weighed more heavily than major subcontractor past performance. Past performance provided from sources other than the offeror, major subcontractors, primary teaming partners, or joint venture members or for work that they are not proposed to perform will not be evaluated.

An effort will be deemed relevant if it demonstrates experience providing support services similar to those specified in Table 7. The past performance narratives and information obtained from the offeror and other sources will be used to establish relevancy of past performance. Table 6 outlines the relevancy ratings that will be assigned based on the criteria in Table 7. These areas relate to each subfactor within the Technical factor. The Government will use the relevancy definitions in Table 6 when assessing recent, relevant contracts, consistent with the DoD Source Selection Procedures Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method. Relevancy ratings will be based on the extent to which a present or past performance citation is similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the criteria identified in Table 7 for each subfactor (Program Management, Pressure Vessel Support, and Maintenance and Repair).

Table 6. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS:

scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 7 Past Performance Relevancy Areas and Relevancy Elements

Relevant

Somewhat Relevant

Managing a facility M&R contract with over 25 Employees

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.1.2.3 Quality of Services:

The Government will consider information from customers and other sources on how well the Offeror performed on present/past contract citations (reference paragraph above). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of the work performed will be assessed for each of the technical subfactors (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 present/past performance information that the Government finds to be recent and relevant, regardless of its source. The quality of services assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse findings are 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, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The quality of services will be evaluated utilizing the adjectival ratings defined below in Table 8:

Table 8. Quality of Services Adjectival Ratings

3.1.2.4 Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy and quality of services assessments. Offerors will receive a single integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the Past Performance factor level (see Table 5 above). Although the evaluation considers performance relevant to the Technical subfactors, the resulting confidence assessment is made at the factor level and reflects the Government’s overall evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance record. 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 record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Additionally, a past performance record demonstrating greater relevance and stronger quality of performance may support a higher confidence assessment and more favorable consideration than a less relevant or less favorably rated record.

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

4.1 Factor 3: Cost/Price

4.1.1 Price Evaluation

Cost/Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) realism, (4) unbalanced pricing, and (5) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). An Offeror’s proposal may be determined unawardable under the Cost/Price factor if the Total Evaluated Price is unreasonable, if unbalanced pricing is found to pose an unacceptable risk to the Government, if the proposed costs or rates are determined unrealistic in a manner that poses an unacceptable risk, or if the Cost/Price volume is materially incomplete or non-compliant with the instructions in Section L. In the evaluation, the Government may use data external to the Offeror’s proposal IAW RFO 15.404-1.

4.1.2 Completeness

The Government will conduct an initial compliance and completeness review of the Cost/Price Volume in accordance with Section L. This review will determine whether the Offeror has strictly complied with all Cost/Price Volume instructions, including but not limited to the use of the mandatory Cost/Price Workbook, the provision of traceable Excel formulas without hard-coded values, and the submission of all required raw data to support proposed rates. The Government will also evaluate the consistency of information throughout the cost workbook (for example, labor rates proposed at the CLIN level shall be consistent with those proposed in Table 5 (Breakdown of Rates) of Section L). An Offeror whose Cost/Price Volume fails to comply with the mandatory submission requirements of Section L may be deemed non-compliant and ineligible for further evaluation under the Cost/Price factor.

4.1.3 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness using one or more of the analysis techniques described in RFO 15.404-1. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques. For additional information on determining cost reasonableness, see RFO 31.201-3. A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal unawardable. In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable are ineligible for award, and a reasonableness determination will not be made for technically unacceptable proposals. The price reasonableness determination will be based on the TEP.

4.1.4 Realism

The Government will evaluate the cost realism of each Offeror’s proposed burdened rates for the total period of performance, IAW Section L, Table 5 (Breakdown of Rates), for CPIF CLINs X002 and X003, and CPFF CLIN X009. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed rates are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements (derived from the PWS and historical and workload data) and consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

· Proposed Target Fee for CPIF CLINs X002 and X003 must not exceed the 8% maximum allowable fee cap specified in Section L.

· Proposed Fixed Fee for CPFF CLIN X009 must not exceed the 5% maximum allowable fee cap specified in Section L.

· Proposals exceeding these fee limitations will be deemed unreasonable and unawardable.

This cost realism evaluation process involves the Government’s independent review and evaluation of specific cost elements of the Offeror’s cost/price to determine the Most Probable Cost (MPC) of performance for each Offeror IAW RFO 15.404-1(d). Any proposed cost element may be adjusted based upon the Government's analysis of the proposed technical approach. Cost adjustments will consider weaknesses in the technical proposal that impact the costs, missing costs that will likely be incurred for the contract with the proposed solution, and any Offeror-initiated unsubstantiated decrements to historical hours/costs. The cost adjustments will result in the Government’s MPC that will be incorporated into the TEP calculation for best value tradeoff consideration. The realism assessment will focus on whether the proposed price is too low. Therefore, all cost realism adjustments will be upward; there will not be any downward adjustments to the proposed cost or fee.

No MPC adjustment will be made for deficiencies; however, deficiencies may render the Offeror’s proposal unawardable. Over-proposing of unwanted tasks and associated costs will NOT result in a probable cost adjustment but may result in an unreasonableness determination. The Offeror’s proposal must be clear and convincing in demonstrating that the proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of realism poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Offeror’s proposed rates for the Cost Plus CLINs, as documented in Section L, Table 5, shall become the Forward Pricing Rates in the awarded contract for the entire period of performance for negotiation of Task Orders against basic contract CLINs X002, X003 and X009.

4.1.5 Unbalanced Pricing

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing IAW RFO 15.406. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The assessment of unbalanced pricing will apply to the proposal as a whole, including all CLINs, as applicable. In conducting this assessment, the Government may consider whether any proposed CLIN prices, estimated costs, or pricing elements are significantly overstated or understated in relation to the proposed effort, the overall proposal, or one another, and whether such pricing creates an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.1.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Calculation

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the following over the 9-year period of performance:

· The sum of the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs X001, X004, X005, X006, X007, X010, and Phase-out CLIN 0099.

· The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) CLINs X002 and X003 (Target Cost + Target Fee).

· The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINs X009 (Estimated Cost + Fixed Fee).

· The Cost (No Fee) CLINs X008.

· Phase-In CLIN 0098 will be evaluated for reasonableness but is excluded from the TEP.

For all Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) types, the evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The Government will incorporate any Most Probable Cost adjustments into the TEP. The Government-calculated TEP will be presented to the SSA for the best-value tradeoff decision.

4.1.7 Insufficient Details and Burden of Proof

Insufficient details to support the determination of price reasonableness, cost realism, or the presence of unbalanced pricing, initially or subsequently, may be used as a basis for excluding the Offeror’s proposal from the competitive range and further consideration for award. The burden of proof to demonstrate price reasonableness, cost realism, and complete consistency across all pricing volumes rests solely with the Offeror.

M-5 EVALUATION FACTORS: Volume 5 – Contract Documentation

5.1 Administrative Documents

5.1.1 Administrative Documents & Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Should an Offeror take any exception to the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the Offeror 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).

5.1.2 Mission Essential Contractor Services

The Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan IAW R-DFARS 252.237-7023 and R-DFARS 252.237-7024 will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. This evaluation is a strict compliance requirement and is not part of the Factors. Prior to evaluating the Factors, the Government will conduct an initial compliance check of the Offeror's proposed Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan (Volume 5, Appendix CD1) IAW R-DFARS 252.237-7023 and R-DFARS 252.237-7024. The plan will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable (Pass/Fail) basis utilizing the rating criteria in Table 9 below. An Offeror receiving an "Unacceptable" rating for its Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan will be deemed non-compliant and ineligible for award, and the Government will not evaluate the remaining rated Technical Subfactors.

Table 9. MISSION-ESSENTIAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES RATINGS