Attachment 18 - SABER MAC IDIQ RFP Section M v1.5 (Final) -- 20250210.pdf

Attachment 18 to FA466425R0001

SECTION M – EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

M1. SOURCE SELECTION METHODOLOGY

This acquisition will utilize the Performance-Price Trade-off (PPT) source selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, and FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures referenced in the Department of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplemental (DFARS) 215.300 and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplemental (DAFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 to make an assessment for a best value award decision.

The United States Government (USG) intends to award two (2) contracts resulting from this solicitation.

If an offeror is determined to be technically acceptable, a tradeoff may be made between past performance and price, with past performance being significantly more important than cost or price. The offeror shall propose on all contract line-item numbers (CLINs) that require proposed pricing in Attachment 19 – Coefficient Pricing Workbook.

While the USG will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. The offeror is reminded that the USG will only evaluate one (1) proposal from each offeror. An award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, which includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP), and provides the best value to the USG based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

M1.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The USG intends to award two (2) contracts for the March Air Reserve Base (MARB) Simplified Acquisition of Base Engineer Requirements (SABER) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Program. The MARB SABER IDIQ contract falls under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 236220, Commercial and Institutional Building Construction. The period of performance is one (1) base year period and four (4) - one (1) year option periods for a total of five (5) ordering periods.

The total duration of contractual coverage shall not exceed five (5) years and six (6) months. It is anticipated that the USG will exercise the options.

M1.2. Competitive Range Determination:

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate the offeror from the competition. The competitive range determination may be based on Factor 1, Technical, Factor 2, Past Performance, Factor 3, Price, contract documentation, or any combination thereof. A competitive range determination may exclude the offeror based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions, or prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request. If an offeror is excluded from the competitive range, the offeror may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors.

Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s demonstrated ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. The USG will evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and sub-factors specified in the solicitation. For the purposes of efficiency and IAW FAR 15.306, Exchange with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals, Competitive Range, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition for this PPT source selection.

If the PCO determines 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 an elimination decision will be provided to an unsuccessful offeror IAW FAR 15.503, Notifications to Unsuccessful Offerors.

M2. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

M2.1. Discussions:

The USG intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary, however offerors should not anticipate an opportunity to discuss their proposal in detail. Any discussions will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306, Exchange with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals. If the PCO 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 PCO, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority (SSA), may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range. This limit will be adjusted to the greatest number that permits an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the USG to conduct discussions, then discussions will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306, Exchange with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals.

Discussions shall be conducted in the form of evaluation notices (ENs). The offeror’s responses to ENs for Contract Documentation, Factor 1 – Technical, Factor 2 - Past Performance, and Factor 3 - Price, will be incorporated into the FPR, and the FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision.

If the offeror’s technical proposal has been evaluated as acceptable and the price has been determined to be complete, reasonable, balanced, and realistic (the USG reserves the right, but is not obligated, to conduct a price realism analysis on any proposal(s) that the USG deems appropriate) at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR shall be fully explained and substantiated by the offeror, and are subject to evaluation, which may render the offeror’s proposal technically unacceptable and the price incomplete, unreasonable, unbalanced, and/or unrealistic (the USG reserves the right, but is not obligated, to conduct a price realism analysis on any proposal(s) that the USG deems appropriate), causing the offeror to be ineligible for award.

M2.2. Cross Referencing:

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation that is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

M3. EVALUATION FACTORS

M3.1. Evaluation Factors:

Evaluation factors and subfactors represent specific characteristics that are tied to this requirement. The below evaluation factors shall be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each offeror’s proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the USG based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Understanding & Approach (VOLUME II)

Subfactor 1: Management / Organizational Structure

Subfactor 2: Bonding Capacity Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan Subfactor 4: Seed Projects

Factor 2: Past Performance (VOLUME III)

Factor 3: Price/Cost (VOLUME IV)

M3.2. Relative Importance of Factors:

The evaluation may result in an award being made to a higher past performance confidence rated, higher priced, technically acceptable offeror, whereby the decision to award is consistent with the evaluation factors and subfactors, and the SSA reasonably determines that the higher past performance confidence rating of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The USG will not award a contract to an offeror that receives a Performance Confidence Assessment rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.” The source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation process.

IAW FAR 15.304(e), the relative importance of each factor and subfactor are for those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable. Trade-offs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance being significantly more important than cost or price.

M3.3. Evaluation Methodology:

Proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. For this evaluation, a maximum of two (2) offerors who: 1) are deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, 2) have been evaluated as technically acceptable, and 3) have been evaluated with a Price/Past Performance trade-off that is deemed advantageous to the Government, will each be awarded one (1) of two (2) available Seed Projects via a SABER MAC IDIQ task order. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price/Cost. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Gate 1: All proposals that are determined timely and determined to be consistent with, conform to, and to be complete in accordance with the instructions provided in Section L will be ranked from lowest to highest total evaluated price (TEP). The three (3) proposals with the lowest TEPs will proceed to Gate 2.

Gate 2: The three (3) proposals with the lowest TEPs will be evaluated for technical capability on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis and the TEP will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, balance, and realism (the USG reserves the right, but is not obligated, to conduct a price realism analysis on any proposal(s) that the USG deems appropriate). Of the three (3) proposals, only the proposals that receive an “Acceptable” technical rating and are determined to be complete, reasonable, balanced, and realistic (the USG reserves the right, but is not obligated, to conduct a price realism analysis on any proposal(s) that the USG deems appropriate) will proceed to Gate 3.

Gate 3: Of the proposal(s) that proceeded to Gate 3, only two (2) proposals with the lowest TEP will be evaluated for past performance. If the proposal(s) with the lowest TEP receives a "Substantial Confidence" past performance confidence assessment rating, a recommendation will be presented to the SSA for award to that offeror. If the proposal(s) with the lowest TEP do not receive a "Substantial Confidence" past performance confidence assessment rating, the other proposals in Gate 3 will receive a past performance evaluation. If two (2) proposals receive a “Substantial Confidence” rating, the evaluation stops, and these offerors will proceed to Gate 4. If the USG determines that discussions are necessary at this point, a competitive range will be established consisting of only the proposals that have been evaluated up to this point.

If none of the three (3) lowest TEP proposals receive a “Substantial Confidence” rating, Gates 1 and 2 will be reopened and the remaining proposals will be evaluated starting with the next lowest TEP until two (2) proposals receive a “Substantial Confidence” past performance confidence assessment rating or if none receive a “Substantial Confidence” rating until all the proposals are evaluated. In this case all Gate 3 evaluated proposals will proceed to Gate 4.

Gate 4: The USG, at its discretion, may conduct discussions with those offerors inside the competitive range or the SSA will make a best value decision IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures (20 August 2022) and the evaluation criteria established in the RFP.

NOTE: The USG, at its discretion, may conduct discussions at any time during the evaluation process. If discussions are conducted, notifications will be issued accordingly to those offerors excluded from the competitive range IAW FAR 15.503(a).

M4. VOLUME I (CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION)

M4.1. General:

Each proposal will be reviewed for consistency, conformance, and completeness to instructions provided in Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors. This Volume is not rated and is not considered in the assessment for determination of best value. However, a proposal that is inconsistent, does not conform, and is not complete IAW the instruction provided in Section L may result in an offeror’s proposal being ineligible for award.

In addition, each offeror’s registration and data in the System for Award Management (SAM @ www.sam.gov) will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements with FAR Part 4. The offeror shall have a current registration in SAM to be eligible for award. The offeror shall clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation requirements and provide complete supporting rationale in the Contract Documentation Volume. The USG reserves the right to determine any such exceptions to be unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

NOTE: The offeror shall make no changes or modifications to Section L instructions, the solicitation, or its attachment(s). Any such changes or modifications will be rejected and shall render the proposal ineligible for award.

M5. VOLUME II (TECHNICAL)

M5.1. Factor 1 – Technical Understanding & Approach:

The technical ratings below reflect the evaluation of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the USG’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the technical proposal is “acceptable” or “unacceptable,” using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table 5.1. Technical Ratings below. One (1) technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. For the offer to be considered awardable, the proposal must receive an “acceptable” rating in every factor and subfactor.

M5.1.1. Subfactor 1 – Management/Organizational Structure:

This subfactor is met when the offeror provides:

1) an organizational chart which identifies key personnel with a description of their work experience relating to projects similar in scope to those expected under this MARB SABER IDIQ as specified in Section L;

2) a narrative describing the organization’s program management policies, procedures, and processes as specified in Section L; and

3) a comprehensive Project Management Plan (PMP) developed specifically for managing the MARB SABER IDIQ program as specified in Section L, paragraphs 4.2.4.1. through 4.2.4.1.3.

M5.1.2. Subfactor 2 – Bonding Capacity:

1) evidence of its ability to obtain the maximum single award / task order (TO) performance and payment bonding capacity of $1M and a minimum multiple project aggregate bonding capacity of $9M for the entire five (5) year MAC IDIQ and substantiates the items found in Section L, paragraph 4.2.4.2.1.

M5.1.3. Subfactor 3 – Quality Control Plan (QCP):

1) a draft QCP that identifies personnel, procedures, controls, instructions, tests, records, and forms to be used by the KTR while this IDIQ contract.

2) thoroughly substantiates the items found under Section L, paragraph 4.2.4.3.1.

M5.1.4. Subfactor 4 – Seed Project:

This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a Seed Project proposal that:

1) identifies major milestones within the critical path;

2) provides a detailed approach from requirement documents to construction completion within the period of performance stated within the project;

3) identifies significant risks along the critical path;

4) provides a comprehensive Work Performance Plan (WPP), and

5) provides documentation as specified under Section L, paragraphs 4.2.4.4 through 4.2.4.4.4.

Table 5.1: Technical Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M6. VOLUME III (PRESENT/PAST PERFORMANCE)

M6.1. General:

Past Performance will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully on this RFP. This will be accomplished through a confidence assessment rating based on the USG’s assessment of the offeror’s past performance on this RFP that are recent, relevant, and contains quality concerning the requirements of this solicitation.

The offeror can submit past performance efforts in which the offeror performed the work directly, and/or efforts in which the offeror managed the work performed by a subcontractor and/or efforts for any significant subcontractor on this RFP that demonstrates compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The offeror can perform all the work or manage the work being performed under each effort that is submitted. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, the context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered.

The USG will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s Past Performance Volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division provides the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

M6.2. Past Performance Assessment:

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the USG reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), and information obtained from other sources available to the USG to include, but not limited to:

• Contractor Performance Acquisition Retrieval System (CPARS);

• SAM.gov Responsibility/Qualification (formerly known as ‘Federal Awardee Performance and

Integrity Information System’ (FAPIIS);

• Electronic Document Access (EDA); other databases or repositories of contract information.

• Interviews or questionnaires with Program Managers, PCOs, the Defense Contract Management

Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources; and/or

• Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) (see paragraph L2.5 Electronic Reference Documents.).

Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

M6.3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission:

In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e., Delivery or Task Order). Therefore, IAW Section L, if the contract the offeror is submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (e.g., including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual Delivery or Task Order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The USG shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance.

M6.3.1. Series of Orders:

If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

• The USG shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The USG shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of

Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

CAUTION: All orders within the series of orders being submitted should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The USG reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror concerning Points of Contact (POCs) provided to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

M6.4. Recency Assessment:

For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as an active or completed contract effort performed by the offeror directly and/or performed by a significant subcontractor under the management of the offeror and/or performed by a significant subcontractor on this RFP where at least twelve (12) months of the effort’s period of performance has been completed within the past five (5) years from the date this RFP was released.

Greater consideration will be given to more recent efforts.

M6.5. Relevancy Assessment:

Relevant past performance is based on the degree of similarity in scope, complexity, and the magnitude of the effort between the past performance and the requirement as identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Relevancy will be assigned a rating outlined in Table 6.1, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. The USG is not bound by the offeror’s or significant subcontractor’s opinion of relevancy. Past performance efforts that do not meet the relevancy criteria will not be further evaluated. The following Table 6.2, Relevancy Definitions and Table 6.3, Relevancy Complexity Matrix – Areas of Past Performance apply and will be assigned to each contract effort submitted in the offeror’s VOLUME III Present or Past Performance proposal:

Table 6.1: Present/Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival 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.

Table 6.2: Relevancy Definitions Assessment Area Very Relevant Relevant Somewhat

Relevant Not Relevant

Scope

The offeror’s past performance and/or the past performance of any significant subcontractor(s) on this RFP reflects experience in all areas of the SOW.

The offeror’s past performance and/or the past performance of any significant subcontractor(s) on this RFP reflects experience in most areas of the

SOW.

The offeror’s past performance and/or the past performance of any significant subcontractor(s) on this RFP reflects experience in some areas of the

SOW.

The offeror’s past performance and/or the past performance of any significant subcontractor(s) on this RFP reflects no experience with regard to the

SOW.

Complexity

The offeror’s past performance and/or the past performance of any significant subcontractor(s) on this RFP reflects concurrent performance experience in all areas listed in Table 6.3, Relevancy Complexity Matrix.

The offeror’s past performance and/or the past performance of any significant subcontractor(s) on this RFP reflects concurrent performance experience in any two (2) areas listed in Table 6.3, Relevancy Complexity Matrix.

The offeror’s past performance and/or the past performance of any significant subcontractor(s) on this RFP reflects concurrent performance experience in any area listed in Table 6.3, Relevancy Complexity Matrix.

The offeror’s past performance and/or the past performance of any significant subcontractor(s) on this RFP reflects no concurrent performance experience in the areas listed in Table 6.3, Relevancy Complexity Matrix.

Magnitude of Effort

The offeror’s past performance and/or the past performance of any significant subcontractor(s) on this RFP reflects concurrent or consecutive performance on contracts, task orders, or job orders with a value of at least $5M annually.

The offeror’s past performance and/or the past performance of any significant subcontractor(s) on this RFP reflects concurrent or consecutive performance on contracts, task orders, or job orders with a value of at least $4M annually.

The offeror’s past performance and/or the past performance of any significant subcontractor(s) on this RFP reflects concurrent or consecutive performance on contracts, task orders, or job orders with a value of at least $3M annually.

The offeror’s past performance and/or the past performance of any significant subcontractor(s) on this RFP reflects concurrent or consecutive performance on contracts, task orders, or job orders with a value of less than $3M annually.

NOTE: The offeror’s past performance is defined as efforts performed by the offeror directly and/or performed in conjunction with a significant subcontractor under the management of the offeror.

Table 6.3: Relevancy Complexity Matrix – Areas of Past Performance

1. Experience managing a workforce of more than 50 personnel with varying skill sets.

2. Experience in managing regulatory requirements (Federal, State, Local, UFCs, etc.) and/or Air Force Instructions/ Manuals/ Technical Orders.

3. Experience in maintaining on-time schedules, deliverables, and reports.

4. Experience managing multiple construction projects (3 or more) simultaneously.

M6.6. Performance Quality Assessment:

The USG will consider the offeror’s performance quality (how well the offeror performed on an effort or contract) of recent and relevant efforts, to include work performed directly by the offeror and/or performed by a significant subcontractor under the management of the offeror, and the quality of recent and relevant efforts of the significant subcontractors on this RFP. The performance quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available to determine the offeror’s ability to supply the services that met the contract effort requirements. This includes information available for significant subcontractors on this RFP.

The assessment may include adverse information. Adverse information is defined as past performance that supports an unsatisfactory or marginal rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The offeror may have the opportunity to address adverse past performance information obtained from references (i.e., PPQs on which the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to comment), if that information makes a difference in the USG’s decision to include the offeror or exclude the offeror from the competitive range. This allows the offeror a fair opportunity for rebuttal of any negative information that may not be due solely to the poor performance of the contractor, or that may not have been adequately resolved since the date of the information provided.

M6.7. Past Performance Evaluation Confidence Ratings:

The USG will evaluate past performance and assign an overall confidence rating outlined in Table 6.4, Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, based on all the recent and relevant past performance of the offeror and significant subcontractors on this RFP. The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be arrived at by considering all past performance in the aggregate. The relevancy rating will be based on the scope, complexity, and the magnitude of the effort of a minimum of two (2), but no more than five (5) recent contracts. As a result of the relevancy assessments and the quality of reported performance of the recent efforts evaluated, the offeror will receive a past performance confidence rating at the factor level as outlined below.

Table 6.4: Present/Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the recent/relevant performance record of the offeror on this RFP, the USG has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the recent/relevant performance record of the offeror on this RFP, the USG 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 on this RFP performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror on this RFP may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the recent/relevant performance record of the offeror on this RFP, the USG has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the recent/relevant performance record of the offeror on this RFP, the USG has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE*: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)]. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.” A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the USG than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

M7. VOLUME IV (COST/PRICE)

M7.1. CLIN Schedule Review:

The USG will evaluate the price data submitted per Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors (see Attachment 19 – Coefficient Pricing Workbook), using one (1) or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis, in order to determine if the price is complete, reasonable, and balanced. If the USG determines that it is appropriate to conduct a price realism analysis on any of the proposals, the USG reserves the right to request additional information related to the pricing strategy of the proposal(s), through an official request. This request does not constitute opening discussions. This may include requesting data that is Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated IAW the TEP paragraph, below.

NOTE: Offerors shall make no changes or modifications to Attachment 19. Any such changes or modifications will be rejected and render the proposal ineligible for award.

M7.1.1. FACTOR 3 – Price/Cost:

M7.1.1.1. The USG will evaluate the proposed price for the Seed Projects, Attachment 19 – Coefficient Pricing Workbook, to determine which offerors’ TEP represents the best value to the USG. The PCO will use price competition and/or the USG’s estimate to determine whether the offeror’s pricing is fair and reasonable in addition to other methods required in FAR 15.404, Proposal Analysis.

M7.1.1.2. Priced Coefficients Factor. After determining technical acceptability, the offeror’s coefficient pricing schedule will be evaluated, based upon the total coefficient proposed for base award coefficients and all options. The USG will evaluate the proposed pricing schedule coefficients to determine which offerors’ total coefficient represents the best value to the USG. The PCO will use price competition and other applicable techniques deemed appropriate IAW FAR 15.404-1 to determine whether an offeror's pricing is fair and reasonable as well as balanced across all option years.

NOTE: Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable may not be considered for award.

M7.1.1.3. The USG is not obligated to award the Seed Projects presently. The USG will award a minimum guarantee of $2,000.00 to the awardee for attending a face-to-face post-award briefing. However, offerors are required to guarantee pricing for the Seed Projects for 180 days.

M7.1.1.4. The pricing schedules provided shall be filled out by the offeror for evaluation purposes on Attachment 19 – Coefficient Pricing Workbook. The offeror shall provide their company name and date on the separate Attachment 19, then fill in the proposed coefficient for the Base Period and Option Periods for all listed CLINS. The USG’s evaluation of the offeror’s coefficient pricing schedule will breakdown and document the completeness and reasonableness of the proposed coefficients. Prices will also be evaluated to determine the offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements as expressed by the award.

NOTE: The USG will evaluate the offeror's Price/Cost proposal, but it will not be adjectively scored.

M7.1.1.5. The prices in Attachment 19 will be evaluated by adding all the base period CLIN prices, all the option period CLIN prices, and all the “Option to Extend Services” CLIN prices to determine the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

NOTE: Evaluation of options shall not obligate the USG to exercise such options.

M7.2. Completeness:

For completeness, offerors shall provide all unit prices and extended prices for each CLIN that requires proposed pricing in Attachment 19. Incomplete proposals (without required prices) shall render an offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

M7.3. Reasonableness:

The offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated to ensure the final, agreed-to price is fair and reasonable.

Price reasonableness is normally established through adequate price competition but may also be determined through price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. Price Reasonableness will be based on the evaluation of the TEP, not the individual CLIN prices. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis with the USG’s obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4, Contract Pricing, may be required to support the proposed price.

M7.4. Balance:

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for balance IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), Proposal Analysis Techniques, Unbalanced Pricing. The offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The USG shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in the schedule of the solicitation. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the USG.

M7.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on the review of all prices provided in Attachment 19 – Coefficient Pricing Workbook. The offeror’s proposed price will be reviewed for compliance with the instructions provided in Attachment 19.

NOTE: Attachment 19 will automatically calculate the TEP based on offerors' inputs. Offerors are to verify the proposed prices are calculated correctly. If the Unit Price is zero (0) dollars, the offeror shall input “$0.00” in Attachment 19.

The TEP will be the sum of the evaluated prices for the entire five (5) year ordering period, and the six (6) month option extension are as follows:

Base Period: CLINs 0001 – 0002 (FFP) Contract Option Period One: CLINs 1001 – 1002 (FFP) Contract Option Period Two: CLINs 2001 – 2002 (FFP) Contract Option Period Three: CLINs 3001 – 3002 (FFP) Contract Option Period Four: CLINs 4001 – 4002 (FFP) 6-month Option Extension: CLINs 5001 – 5002 (FFP)

The USG will evaluate the offeror’s price of the six (6) month option extension IAW FAR 52.217- 8, Option to Extend Services. The evaluation of option periods shall not obligate the USG to exercise those options.

(End of Section)