Sect M - Evaluation Criteria (DRAFT).pdf

FA4890-22-R-0051

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M – EVALUATION CRITERIA

As stated in FAR 15.204-1(b), Section M will not be physically included in any resultant contract.

EVALUATION

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1 This competitive best value tradeoff source selection was prepared IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DOD) Source Selection Procedures, dated 20 August 2022, and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection, effective 1 July 2022, using the Best Value Subjective Tradeoff source selection process. This source selection will be conducted IAW the solicitation. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) deemed responsible IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements.

M-1.2 The Government contemplates award of one (1) contract resulting from this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds. Evaluation will be conducted as outlined in M-3.

M-1.3 Factor ratings and assessments will focus on each proposal’s strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, performance confidence, and price. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that the technical superiority and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA bases the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors. While the Government 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.

M-1.4 The Government intends to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s proposal is the best value solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Accordingly, Offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. Should the Government determine it is in their best interest to open and conduct discussions, discussions will be held only with those Offerors determined to be in the competitive range. The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each Offeror’s technical, past performance, and price proposals.

M-1.5 If the Government holds discussions, the Government will issue evaluation notices to Offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to evaluation notices and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

M-1.6 Facility Clearance Requirements. At proposal submission, the Offeror shall possess a SECRET facility security clearance to assume contract tasks and responsibilities. For Joint Ventures, at least one (1) member is required to submit a facility security clearance certification/registration. If an Offeror does not have this type of clearance at the time of proposal submission, the proposal will NOT be evaluated and is not eligible for award. The Government will NOT sponsor Offerors for facility clearances.

M-1.7 International Organization for Standardization 9001 (ISO9001) Quality Management System Certification. At proposal submission, the Offeror shall possess ISO9001 certification to the most current standard to assume contract tasks and responsibilities. For Joint Ventures, at least one (1) member is required to submit a ISO9001 certification.

If an Offeror does not have this type of certification at the time of proposal submission, the proposal will NOT be evaluated and is not eligible for award.

M-2 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION (FPR)

M-2.1 FPRs will be requested from each Offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions, if conducted. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions in the submitted FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new, or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. The Contracting Officer will establish a common due date and time for submission of the FPR.

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

Each proposal will be evaluated using three (3) evaluation factors: (1) Technical Capability, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Cost/Price. There are four (4) subfactors within Factor 1, Technical Capability: (A) Program Management, (B) Logistics Management, (C) Mobilization/Transition, and (D) Small Business Participation. Subfactors A, B, and C are of equal importance to each other and will be rated using the Technical Ratings and Technical Risk Ratings detailed in M-3.1 below. Subfactor D will be rated solely as Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined in Table 4, below.

Subjective Tradeoff Criteria. The following factors will be evaluated using a subjective tradeoff process.

Subjective Tradeoff is a source selection process used when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror but it is not possible to place a quantifiable value on proposed performance or capabilities above threshold (minimum) requirements. (DoD Source Selection Procedures, 20 Aug 2022, Chapter 5, Definitions)

The relative importance of these tradeoff factors are listed in order:

1. Technical Capability (Factor 1) is the most important non-price factor.

2. Past Performance (Factor 2) is the second most important non-price factor.

Factor 1, Technical Capability, is most important, and when combined with Factor 2, Past Performance, is significantly more important than Factor 3, Price. The greater the equality of proposals for factors other than price, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.

As a basis for award, price is of secondary consideration; therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. Price is not expected to be the most significant factor in the selection of an Offeror for this solicitation; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals for the other factors evaluated. When competing proposals are evaluated and determined to be approximately equivalent on technical capability, past performance and other non-price factors, total price and other price factors would become the most significant factor. Prices will be evaluated to determine if the proposed price is fair & reasonable, balanced, and realistic and to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between technical and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an abnormally priced cost estimate, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of price credibility rests solely with the Offeror. Price proposals will not be rated or scored. The Government will make a subjective evaluation to determine if the Offeror’s technical approach and proposed price represents the greatest value to the Government.

VOLUME I: TECHNICAL

M-3.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY; SUBFACTORS (A) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, (B)

LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT, and (C) MOBILIZATION/TRANSITION. For Subfactors A, B, and C, the technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with the technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement. A Risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

These two ratings presented together are of equal impact for the rating of each applicable technical subfactor. The technical ratings shall be assessed at the subfactor level and an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. In order to be eligible for award, Offerors are required to meet all aspects of the technical subfactors and receive a minimum Technical Rating of Acceptable and a minimum Technical Risk Rating of Moderate for Factor 1, Subfactors A, B, and C. The Government reserves the right to incorporate any unique aspects or areas of the successful Offeror’s proposal that are deemed beneficial to the Government including, but not limited to, Significant Strengths and Strengths. These items will be considered to have merit to the overall performance of the contract and the process(es) the contractor proposes. These portions will be incorporated into the PWS and therefore become part of the contract.

Each of these subfactors will be evaluated for Significant Strengths, Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies as defined in Table 1.

Table 1. Factor 1, Subfactors A, B & C – Evaluation Definitions

Note: From DoD Source Selection Procedures (20 Aug 2022), Chapter 5, Definitions

Each of these subfactors will be assessed a Technical Rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable as defined in Table 2. Offerors must have a minimum Technical Rating of Acceptable for each of these subfactors to be eligible for award. Offerors with a Technical Rating of Marginal or Unacceptable in any of these subfactors will be ineligible for award.

Table 2: Factor 1, Subfactors A, B & C – Technical Ratings

Note: From DoD Source Selection Procedures (20 Aug 2022), Table 2A. Technical Rating Method

Term Definition

Significant Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in an Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw in an Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Purple Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

Each of these subfactors will also be assessed a Technical Risk Rating of Low, Moderate, High, or Unacceptable.

Offerors must have a minimum Technical Risk Rating of Moderate for each of these subfactors to be eligible for award. Offerors with a Technical Risk Rating of High or Unacceptable in any of these subfactors will be ineligible for award.

Table 3: Factor 1, Subfactors A, B & C – Technical Risk Ratings

Note: From DoD Source Selection Procedures (20 Aug 2022), Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating Method

M-3.1.1 Subfactor A: Program Management. This Subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates an effective integrated management approach for accomplishing program requirements to include:

a. Aspect I. Management and Integration. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. An effective integrated management approach that demonstrates an organizational structure based upon

PWS requirements that consists of an appropriate leadership hierarchy, manning levels by position, skill levels by position, utilization of personnel to include details regarding any specific plans for cross-utilization, assigned roles and responsibilities, and lines of authority to meet provided workload data and execute all PWS requirements. Demonstrates and justifies appropriate manning levels to meet contract unique requirements by position and skill levels.

ii. Demonstrates a comprehensive communication approach that consists of effective lines of communication, reporting, progress checkpoints, and interfaces between management, technical staff, subcontractors/teaming partners, and the Government to ensure continuity and mission success.

iii. Demonstrates an effective Data Management System (DMS) and details how required information will be accessible to the Government,

b. Aspect II. Human Resources. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Demonstrates an effective integrated approach to recruit, hire, train, and retain qualified management and technical personnel by job category/position to execute all PWS requirements. Training approach shall consist of all required initial, qualification, proficiency, certification, and recurring training actions taken to provide and maintain a qualified workforce with no interruption in service. Hiring and retention approach shall consist of actions taken to compete for personnel in a competitive labor market.

ii. Demonstrates a comprehensive plan for creating and maintaining a work environment with incentives for employee performance and innovation.

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

iii. Demonstrates an effective plan for mitigating gaps in Key Personnel positions and cross-training/cross-utilization of personnel to mitigate vacancies in “one-deep” positions.

c. Aspect III. Organizational Charts. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Site-specific organizational charts (including PMO, Shaw AFB, and GPMS storage & maintenance sites) with site-specific manpower tables with adequate personnel to perform GPMS Program baseline activities, sustainment, and reconstitution of GPMS assets supporting the overall technical approach. Manpower tables should be by functional area (e.g., Medical WRM) and identify specific roles (e.g., Medical Superintendent, Medical Logistics, Biomedical Equipment Technician, Medical Materiel Management, etc.) and number of personnel in each role.

ii. Key Personnel table identifying key personnel positions, qualifications, certifications, and credentials to become PWS Appendix K. Effective summary includes the following:

1) Position/Title

2) Work Experience (management, supervision, technical)

3) Education (if substituted by experience, specify equivalent level of experience)

4) Clearance (secret, national agency check, host nation clearance)

5) Certifications

M-3.1.2 Subfactor B: Logistics Management. This Subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates continuity of mission support and contract performance to include:

a. Aspect I. Operations & Maintenance (O&M) and Mission Support. Proposal demonstrates an effective approach to identify, prioritize, manage, and control day-to-day O&M and Mission Support functions and flexible response to Exercise & Contingency Logistics requirements such as GPMS Taskers.

b. Aspect II. Contractor-Furnished Vehicles. Proposal demonstrates an effective approach to provide contractor furnished mission support vehicles at contract start to ensure PWS requirements can be met.

c. Aspect III. Outload & Reconstitution. Demonstrates an effective understanding and process flow for managing GPMS taskings, including processes for planning, preparing, delivering/out-loading GPMS assets/Unit Type Codes (UTCs) tasked to support exercises or contingencies, and reconstitute assets upon return.

M-3.1.3 Subfactor C: Mobilization/Transition. This Subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed transition plan demonstrates effective establishment of required management processes resulting in continuity of mission support, contract performance, and mobilization and transition of resources and personnel into the contract. The proposal will be evaluated on the following:

a. Aspect I. Transition Milestones. Proposal demonstrates realistic milestones to execute transition tasks in the mandated 120-day timeframe across all GPMS locations. Proposed approach adequately incorporates program management functions and accounts for Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE), Government- Furnished Property (GFP), and Government-Furnished Facilities (GFF).

b. Aspect II. Transition Organizational Structure. Proposal demonstrates an effective organizational structure that includes appropriate number of personnel and functional assignments to effectively accomplish transition tasks.

c. Aspect III. Recruiting/Hiring Personnel. Proposal demonstrates an effective approach, to include a competitive labor market, to hire qualified personnel to perform contract tasks and responsibilities upon commencement of contract performance period.

d. Aspect IV. Integration of Open Actions. Proposal demonstrates an effective process to acquire and integrate open actions (maintenance actions, requisitions etc.) upon commencement of contract performance period to ensure continuity and timely completion of open items.

e. Aspect V. Interface with Incumbent. Proposal demonstrates an effective approach for interfacing with the incumbent contractor in support of transition tasks.

M-3.1.4 Subfactor D: Small Business Participation. Subfactor D is not of equal weight to Subfactors A, B, and C.

This subfactor will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined in Table 4, Small Business Rating Method.

An Offeror must receive an Acceptable rating in this subfactor to be eligible for award.

Table 4: Factor 1, Subfactors D – Small Business Rating Method

Note: Ratings taken from DoD Source Selection Procedures (20 Aug 2022), Table 6. Small Business Rating Method

This Subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates continuity of mission support and contract performance to include:

a. Aspect I. Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Large Business Primes shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that complies with FAR Part 19, Small Business Programs, and its supplements. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall ensure a minimum of 32.25% to Small Business, 5% to Small Disadvantage, 5% to Women-Owned Small Business, 5% to Veteran Owned, 3% to HUBZone, and 3% to Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses. The percentages are based on the total dollars planned to be subcontracted to small business All Small Business Subcontracting goals shall be expressed in terms of percentage goals (percentage of total subcontract dollars and total contract dollars) IAW FAR 19.704.

Successful Offerors’ Small Business Subcontracting Plans will be incorporated in the Contractor’s GPMS contract. Contractors will submit how they have performed compared to their proposed/accepted goals every 6 months via the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) and the Government will document performance accordingly. Failure to meet or make positive progress toward meeting proposed/accepted small business subcontracting goals may negatively impact a contractor’s performance assessment ratings; and may serve as justification for removal from GPMS contract.

b. Aspect II. Small Business Participation for Small Business Prime Contractors Only. The Small Business

Prime Offeror shall provide a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) in response to the solicitation, which shall be evaluated in accordance with Section M of this solicitation. Small business concerns that qualify in more than one (1) socioeconomic category may be counted in each category for which they qualify. The SBPCD shall demonstrate the Offeror’s commitment to the utilization of Small Businesses, including subcategories, throughout the life of the contract [see DFARS 215.304(c)(i)]. At a minimum, the SBPCD must address the following elements:

(1) List by name the subcontractor(s) to be used and the products/services they are to provide and the NAICS code.

(2) Describe the extent of the corporate level commitment to use small business (for example, what types of commitments (if any) are in place for this specific acquisition either – letters of intent, written contract, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, Joint Ventures, Mentor-Protégé, etc.). Please provide any supporting documents.

(3) Describe the complexity and variety of the work small businesses are to perform.

(4) For other than Small Business, submit a narrative of your approach to meet the proposed goals for subcontracting proposed. For Small Businesses, submit a narrative of your approach for subcontracted efforts.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Small business Offerors may include their own efforts when addressing the names, products and/or services and estimated total dollars planned to be provided by small business concerns. These requirements apply at the Prime contract and first tier subcontract levels.

The successful Offeror’s proposed SBPCD will be incorporated into the contract at contract award. Small businesses goals specifically identified in proposals must be consistent across the individual Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) and the SBPCD.

NOTE: To be determined acceptable, the Large Business Primes shall demonstrate a small business subcontract approach that complies with the proposed percentage of the total annual subcontract dollars and total contract dollars awarded to small businesses. In addition, Small Business Primes are to submit the SBPCD that ensures at least 51% of contract dollars are awarded to small business concerns.

VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE

M-3.2 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE. Past performance shall be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts. The performance confidence assessment will be assessed at an overall factor level after evaluating all aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors. Past performance will be evaluated by examining references submitted by the Offeror, as well as any other past performance found by the Government, and determined by the Government to be recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code 561210, Facilities Support Services.

M-3.2.1 Recency. A Recency determination will be made for each Past Performance Information (PPI) reference provided. Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of six (6 months) during the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation). Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of six (6) months) during the five (5) years from the date of this solicitation), will be considered recent. If a PPI reference is determined recent, the Government may evaluate the Offeror’s performance record during the entire contract period.

M-3.2.2 Relevancy. A Relevancy determination of the Offeror’s Present and Past Performance for each PPI reference will be made. Relevancy for this solicitation is defined as past performance effort involving storage/accountability, maintenance, transportation (outload), reconstitution of military equipment, and OCONUS work similar to the size, scope, and complexity of the 9AF(AFCENT) GPMS program. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being performed by the Offeror, joint venture, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will validate the relevancy information contained in the contractor provided PPI reference. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy definitions apply:

Table 5: Past Performance Relevancy

Note: Ratings taken from DoD Source Selection Procedures (20 Aug 2022), Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

M-3.2.3 Performance Confidence Assessment. The rating for the Past Performance factor is based on evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance data, resulting in an overall performance confidence assessment. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is recent and relevant to the Technical subfactors, the

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.

resulting performance confidence assessment represents the Government’s confidence in an Offeror’s ability to complete work of the same type, size, and magnitude as the GPMS program. Each Offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as follows:

Table 6: Past Performance Confidence Ratings/Definitions

Note: Ratings taken from DoD Source Selection Procedures (20 Aug 2022), Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method M-3.2.3.1 Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or 2) any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system that cause evaluator concern. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any actual corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. IAW FAR 15.306(b), Communications must be held with any Offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the Offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

M-3.2.4 In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence.” A “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in this solicitation.

M-3.2.5 Even though the assessment of past performance is separate and distinct from determination of responsibility required by FAR Part 9, past performance information evaluated may be used to support the determination of responsibility for the successful Offeror.

M-3.3 FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE

M-3.3.1 Price/cost will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair & reasonable, balanced, and realistic price.

M-3.3.1.1 A price analysis will be conducted IAW FAR 15.404-1(b). If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing to be fair and reasonable, and realistic, data other than certified cost or pricing data will be obtained from Offerors.

M-3.3.1.2 A cost analysis will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(c) and (d). Proposed costs should be broken down into cost elements and will be evaluated to ensure costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of your technical volume. In addition, analysis shall be performed to determine the probable cost of

RATING DEFINITION

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

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

performance, reflecting the Government's best estimate of the cost most likely to result from your proposal, based on the cost analysis performed.

M-3.3.1.3 The Government has provided pre-established estimated amounts for Cost Reimbursable (CR) Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs). No fee is allowed. Offerors shall propose indirect cost rate IAW approved forward pricing rate agreement from the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). The pre-established amounts will not change. The proposed/approved indirect cost rate will apply to invoicing only. This rate will not be evaluated.

The Government also has provided a pre-established estimated amount for CLIN X011(Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)) Contingency Logistics Support GPMS Taskers/Reconstitution. Offerors shall propose a Fixed Fee rate for this CLIN and calculate it against the plug number to arrive at the total CLIN value. This is the ONLY CPFF CLIN that will contain a plug number. Offerors are required to insert their Fixed Fee rates for CPFF CLINs in the pricing template for evaluation purposes. Offerors shall propose indirect cost rates IAW approved forward pricing rate agreement from the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Offerors will not change the pre-established amounts.

M-3.3.1.4 In addition to the analyses as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), 15.404-1(c), and 15.404-1(d), proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (See FAR 15.404-1(g)). If cost or price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the Contracting Officer may determine that the offer poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may reject the Offeror’s proposal.

M-3.3.2 Price Realism. Price realism will be evaluated using techniques in FAR 15.404 for the Firm Fixed price Program Management, Contractor Furnished Vehicles, and Transition CLINs. To be realistic, the proposed price must be realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and be consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government intends to use one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed. There is a reasonable expectation of competition for this requirement; thus, Offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal. The Offeror’s price proposal shall represent the Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where an Offeror’s proposed prices appear unrealistically low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. In instances where an Offeror receives at least a “GREEN” Technical Capability rating (Factor 1; Subfactors A, B, and C) with “MODERATE” technical risk, an “Acceptable” Small Business Participation rating (Factor 1, Subfactor D), and at least a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating, yet proposed cost or prices appear unrealistically low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal.

M-3.3.3 Cost reasonableness and realism. Cost reasonableness and realism will be evaluated using the techniques in FAR 15.404, in order to determine the Offeror’s Total Overall Evaluated Price is reasonable and realistic. The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offerors' proposed costs. This cost realism assessment will determine if proposed cost elements 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. The cost realism assessment will consider risks identified during the evaluation of the technical proposal and associated costs. The information collected in the cost realism assessment will be used to develop the Government’s most probable cost estimate. Cost information supporting a cost judged to be unreasonably high/unrealistically low will be quantified by the Government evaluators and included in the cost realism assessment and most probable cost adjustment for each Offeror. When the Government evaluates an Offeror’s costs as unreasonably high or unrealistically low and the Offeror fails to explain these costs, the Government will consider the Offeror as having a lack of understanding of the technical requirement.

M-3.3.4 The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for Firm Fixed Price, Cost Reimbursable CLINs, the Award Fee CLIN, and the most probable cost for Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs; to include the base period, option years, and 50% of the last option period to cover the option to extend services.

NOTE: Evaluation of the option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Both the solicitation and resultant contract shall contain FAR clause 52.217-8 entitled “Option to Extend Services,” which states the Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract, up to an additional 6-month period. Offerors shall not include pricing in their proposal for the 6-month extension, as 50% of the last option period shall be used for pricing of the 6-month extension if FAR 52.217- 8 is required.

M-3.3.5 Pricing Table. The Offerors proposed prices for all CLINs, including Transition, base period, and all option periods listed in Section L, Attachment 4 of the solicitation (Pricing Template) shall be in the Excel spreadsheet.