Attachment 16 - Section M - S-BOS-20260515.pdf

Draft Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

M 1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD- SPAIN BASE OPERATING SUPPORT

M 1.1 General. This is a competitive source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) Part 15, as supplemented by the Revolutionary Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (R-DFARS). The Government intends to award a single Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

M 1.2 Best Value Tradeoff. The Government will utilize a subjective tradeoff source selection process. The evaluation will begin with a pass/fail assessment of the Past Performance factor. Only those proposals receiving an "Acceptable" rating for Past Performance will advance for further consideration. For all proposals deemed Acceptable under Past Performance, the Government will then conduct a subjective tradeoff between the Technical factor and the Price factor to determine the most advantageous proposal.

M 1.3 Relative Order of Importance. The Technical factor is considered significantly more important than Price. The Government is willing to pay a higher price for a technically superior proposal, provided the price is determined to be fair and reasonable. However, the Government reserves the right to award to a lower-priced, lower-rated technical proposal if it is determined to provide the best value. As the non-price factors become more equal among competing proposals, the importance of Price will increase. Subfactor Importance: Within the Technical factor, Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2 are of equal importance. Pass/Fail Elements: Elements within the subfactors that are evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis are not weighted against adjectivally rated elements. However, an Offeror must receive a "Pass" on all Pass/Fail elements within a subfactor to be eligible for an adjectival rating of "Acceptable" or higher for that subfactor. A rating of "Fail" for any individual element will result in the entire subfactor being rated "Unacceptable”.

M 2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

The evaluation factors are Past Performance, Technical, and Price.

M 3.0 FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

M 3.1 General. The Government will conduct a past performance evaluation on a basis of acceptable or unacceptable to determine the degree of confidence in an Offeror's ability to successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation. To be determined "Acceptable," an Offeror must submit a minimum of two (2), and a maximum of five (5), recent and relevant contract references.

M 3.2 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation begins with an assessment of recency. If a submitted contract reference is determined to be not recent, it will not be reviewed further. All recent contracts will then be evaluated for relevancy. If a submitted contract reference is determined to be not relevant, it will not be reviewed further. Only those contracts deemed both recent and relevant will be further evaluated to assess the quality of the Offeror's performance.

M 3.3 Sources of Information. The Government may use past performance information provided by the Offeror but is not limited to that data. The Government may also use past performance information obtained from any other sources, including, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), public information, and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officer Representatives, and Contracting Officers.

M 3.4 Recency. A contract reference will be considered recent if the effort is currently ongoing, or if it was completed within the last five (5) years from the date of this solicitation's issuance.

M 3.5 Relevancy. A contract reference will be considered relevant if it demonstrates experience of a similar size, scope, and complexity to the requirement described in this solicitation. To be considered relevant, a contract must meet, at a minimum, the criteria in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) below.

(a) Size/Magnitude: The referenced contract effort must have an average annual funded value of $20 Million or more. For Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts or similar ordering vehicles, the Government will evaluate the size and scope of the individual Task Order(s) submitted, not the overall ceiling value of the parent contract.

(b) Scope and Complexity: The contract must demonstrate experience as a prime contractor performing a multi-function Base Operations Support (BOS) or similar support contract, including experience with Management of Civil Engineer and Logistics functions; Facility and infrastructure maintenance; and managing a unionized workforce of at least 200 direct employees.

(c) OCONUS Experience: At least one (1) of the relevant contract references shall demonstrate the Offeror's experience performing services as a prime contractor at a major OCONUS installation. A "major OCONUS installation" is defined as a single site meeting all three (3) of the following criteria: (1) supported a population of 400 or more personnel; (2) encompassed a portfolio of at least 75 facilities (defined as any item of real property formally registered in a real property inventory system of record, such as the USAF CE NexGen IT system or equivalent DoD/commercial system); and (3) provided direct support to an operational military, airfield, or critical infrastructure mission requiring 24/7 emergency response capabilities (e.g., Fire/Emergency Services or 24/7 facility maintenance dispatch).

M 3.6 RESERVED.

M 3.7 Joint Ventures (JVs). An Offeror proposing as a Joint Venture may satisfy the past performance requirements by submitting relevant contract references from its individual member companies. To be considered Acceptable, a JV’s proposal must meet the following three conditions:

(a) Management and Integration Plan. To be considered Acceptable, the Joint Venture (JV) shall submit a detailed Management and Integration Plan that includes, at a minimum: 1. A copy of the signed JV Operating Agreement; 2. A clear organizational chart identifying the Managing Partner; and 3. A matrix assigning PWS functions to the specific JV partner(s) possessing the relevant corporate experience for those functions.

(b) Union Relations. The Management Plan shall identify which partner firm has primary responsibility for Union Relations. Furthermore, the JV shall demonstrate, through a submitted past performance reference, a record of successful performance managing a unionized workforce in an OCONUS environment.

M 3.8 Definition and Assessment of Performance Quality. For all contract references determined to be recent and relevant, the Government will assess the quality of performance. The Government's assessment will be based on the official ratings and narrative feedback contained in CPARS reports and/or returned Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs).

(a) Definition of Acceptable Performance: A pattern of acceptable performance is defined as a record of receiving ratings of 'Satisfactory' or higher in the key evaluation areas of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management.

(b) Assessment of Negative Information: A rating of 'Marginal' or 'Unsatisfactory' on a recent and relevant contract may result in an overall "Unacceptable" rating. The Government will consider the number, severity, and recency of any negative ratings, as well as the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken by the Offeror.

M 3.9 Overall Confidence Rating. Based on the entirety of the Offeror's past performance record, the Government will assign one of the following ratings. To be eligible for further consideration for award, an Offeror shall receive an 'Acceptable' rating. An Offeror that receives a rating of 'Unacceptable' will be considered ineligible for award. In accordance with RFO 15.305(a)(2)(iv), an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, will be assigned a rating of 'Acceptable’.

(a) Acceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

(b) Unacceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(c)

M 4.0 FACTOR 2 - TECHNICAL

M 4.1 General. The Technical factor evaluates the Offeror's proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Technical factor is comprised of two subfactors: Subfactor 1 - Program Leadership/Staffing & Continuity, and Subfactor 2 - Performance Oversight & Technology.

M 4.2 Technical Rating Method. The following adjectival ratings will be used for evaluating the qualitative elements of the technical factor:

(a) Outstanding: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

(b) Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

(c) Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

(d) Marginal: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

(e) Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

(f) Definition of Strength: A Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. To be evaluated as a Strength, the proposed aspect must provide a tangible benefit to the Air Force mission (e.g., increased operational availability, faster emergency response, reduced administrative footprint, or enhanced workforce safety).

M 4.3 Subfactor 1: Program Leadership/Staffing & Continuity. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed Organizational Structure and Staffing Plan for its efficiency, clarity, and realism in accomplishing all PWS requirements. The evaluation will focus on the soundness of the Offeror's overall management and staffing approach, not on the qualifications of any specific named individuals.

(a) Element 1: Staffing Plan (Adjectival Rating). The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed Organizational Structure and Staffing Plan for its efficiency, clarity, and realism. To be considered Acceptable, the Offeror's proposal must include:

1. An Organizational Chart that clearly defines the lines of authority and responsibility from the corporate/reach-back level down to the on-site functional leads and supervisory positions. The chart must identify the placement of all Key Personnel positions within the proposed structure and must align with the corresponding FTE counts provided in the Staffing Plan.

2. A comprehensive Staffing Plan and supporting Basis of Estimate (BOE). The Staffing Plan must provide the proposed Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) count for each PWS function at the working level, clearly rolling up to the supervisory positions identified in the Organizational Chart. The supporting BOE must clearly describe the Offeror's methodology for calculating these FTEs, including, at a minimum:

• The specific Planning Factors (e.g., labor hours per task, industry standards) used to convert the Government's workload data into total required labor hours.

• The calculation of the Productive Hours per FTE, showing how the Offeror accounted for all non-productive time (e.g., host nation holidays, vacation, leave, training).

• The final calculation that shows how the total required labor hours were divided by the productive hours to arrive at the proposed FTE count.

The Government will evaluate the realism of the proposed Planning Factors and the calculation of Productive Hours, including all categories of non-productive time required in Section L. Proposals with unrealistic or unsubstantiated staffing estimates that create performance risk may be rated as Marginal or Unacceptable. A higher adjectival rating may be awarded to proposals that demonstrate a superior organizational design and measurable staffing efficiencies. Favorable consideration will be given to Offerors who propose an organizational structure with clear, streamlined lines of authority that demonstrably reduces administrative overhead, or who propose innovative staffing approaches, such as the use of multi-skilled, cross-functional teams that allow the Offeror to meet all PWS requirements with a more efficient total workforce

(b) Element 2: Phase-In Plan (Pass/Fail). The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed Phase-In Plan for acceptability. The Government has established a ninety (90) day phase-in period for this contract. To be rated "Acceptable," the Offeror’s plan shall be a comprehensive project plan that addresses all transition requirements identified in Section L and demonstrates the ability to assume full performance responsibility with no degradation of services by Day 91. The plan shall, at a minimum, include a detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and supporting narrative that addresses each of the following five (5) key transition activities:

1. Operational Stand-Up (e.g., local business registration, banking, tax ID and the engagement of qualified Spanish legal, tax, and labor advisors)

2. Leadership Onboarding and relocation

3. Incumbent Workforce Capture and In-Processing (IAW Article 44)

4. GFP and Historical Data Transfer

5. Supply Chain Transition and local vendor agreements

(c) Element 3: Key Personnel Continuity Plan (Adjectival Rating). The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed Key Personnel Continuity Plan to assess the credibility and effectiveness of their approach to minimizing vacancies in essential positions (defined as those positions identified in Special Contract Requirement H-2). The evaluation will focus on the three (3) distinct areas below. The Government will base its overall adjectival rating on a holistic assessment of the strengths and weaknesses identified in each area.

1. Retention Strategy: The plan shall describe specific, proactive strategies the

Offeror will use to retain key personnel. Offerors shall provide documented evidence of existing corporate retention programs and quantifiable performance metrics (e.g., historical retention rates on similar contracts). The Government will evaluate the degree to which these strategies (e.g., professional development, incentive programs, defined career progression) are well-defined and likely to foster a stable leadership team.

2. Recruitment and Talent Pipelining: The Offeror shall describe their corporate methodology for sourcing and vetting qualified candidates for OCONUS positions. To receive a higher rating, the proposal must demonstrate a robust and proactive process for filling vacancies that aligns with the 120-day Vacancy Fill Period mandated in Clause H-2. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Evidence of an established talent acquisition pipeline (e.g., dedicated OCONUS recruiters or a documented record of filling similar positions). b. A detailed, step-by-step workflow with estimated timelines that accounts for internal vetting, mobilization, and demonstrating a credible ability to have Key Personnel on-site within the required 120-day window..

3. Key Personnel Position Standards: The Government will evaluate the proposed Position Descriptions and Minimum Qualification Requirements for their clarity, completeness, and the degree to which the proposed standards ensure the placement of highly qualified personnel capable of meeting all PWS requirements.

(d) Element 4: Union Labor Management Plan (SPAIN) (Pass/Fail). The

Government will evaluate the Offeror's plan for managing the unionized workforce in Spain. To be rated "Acceptable," the Offeror shall submit a plan that addresses the controlling Spanish Collective Labor Agreement (CLA) and the legal framework, including Article 44 of the Spanish Workers' Statute. This plan shall be incorporated into the contract upon award.

The plan must, at a minimum, address the following specific elements:

1. Article 44 Subrogation Compliance: A step-by-step methodology for integrating, onboarding, and managing the mandatory inherited incumbent workforce on Day 1.

2. Grievance and Dispute Resolution: The Offeror's internal, step-by-step process for handling union grievances and disciplinary actions in accordance with the existing CLA.

3. High-Risk Scenario Management: A step-by-step process for executing the following two scenarios in accordance with Spanish Labor Law:

i. Reduction in Force: A Contractor-initiated Reduction in Force for achieving efficiencies, explicitly addressing the legal requirements for third-party analysis, union consultation, and severance obligations ii.Termination for Cause: The process to terminate an employee for a serious infraction or poor performance, explicitly addressing progressive disciplinary steps, formal notification requirements, and the distinction between "procedente" (justified) and "improcedente" (unjustified) dismissal.

A plan that fails to address all minimum elements will be rated "Unacceptable," rendering the proposal ineligible for award.

(e) Element 5: Workforce Training & Certification Plan (Adjectival Rating)

1. New Employee Onboarding & Initial Training: A detailed description of the onboarding process for new Local National and American National employees, to include initial safety training, familiarization with base procedures, and role-specific skills training before being assigned to independent work.

2. Certification Management & Tracking: The Offeror's proposed system and methodology for tracking all mandatory certifications required by the PWS (e.g., Electrician licenses, HVAC refrigerant handling, Vehicle Mechanic ASE certifications, Welder AWS certifications, etc.). The plan must describe the process for ensuring certifications remain current and are renewed prior to expiration

3. Continuing Education & Skill Sustainment: The Offeror's approach to providing continuing education and recurring training to ensure the workforce remains current with evolving industry standards, new technologies, and changes to applicable DoD or Host Nation regulations.

Differentiators for a Higher Rating (Good/Outstanding): Proposals that demonstrate a proactive and comprehensive approach to workforce development will be evaluated more favorably. This includes, but is not limited to, proposing a formal apprenticeship program, establishing partnerships with local vocational schools, or utilizing a Learning Management System (LMS) to deliver and track computer-based training modules.

M 4.4. Subfactor 2: Performance Oversight & Technology

M 4.4.1. Description:

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach to implementing an Integrated Data Management System (IDMS) and associated dashboards that provide Government Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) with transparent, cross-functional oversight of the offerors performance in meeting critical performance metrics within the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Furthermore, it evaluates the Offeror’s technical approach to bridging the NIPRNet airgap between Contractor work management systems and mandatory Government Systems of Record (e.g., NexGen IT), prioritizing Data Readiness and the integration of Government-furnished Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools over proprietary software. Finally, the Government will evaluate physical and operational innovations proposed as contractor-provided equipment or materials designed to improve workforce efficiency within a Government- Furnished Property (GFP) baseline environment.

M 4.4.2. Differentiators for a Higher Rating:

An Offeror's proposal will be evaluated favorably if it provides an intuitive, comprehensive suite of visual metrics spanning all critical PWS functions tailored for non-technical Government users. Proposals will receive higher subjective ratings if they provide viable, cybersecurity-compliant solutions to synchronize data with Government NIPR systems (overcoming NIPR network restrictions without assuming unfettered API access), demonstrate a clear plan to leverage Government-furnished AI capabilities for data automation, and propose actionable, field-level technological/process innovations.

M 4.4.3. Element 1: Comprehensive PWS Performance Dashboards (Adjectival Rating) The Offeror shall provide high-fidelity visual mock-ups (e.g., PowerBI, Tableau, or equivalent) of their proposed IDMS dashboards. To be evaluated as Acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate the ability to visually track and analyze, at a minimum, the following critical performance indicators across the listed PWS functional areas, moving beyond mere "percentage compliant" metrics to provide deep operational context:

PWS

Functional Area

Minimum Required Key Performance Indicators (Visualized in Mock-Ups)

Program Management

Key Personnel Vacancy Status (Days vacant vs. H-Clause threshold);

Workforce Turnover Rate.

CE: Facility Mx Average Repair Time (in days/hours) for all Work Priorities 1, 3A, 3B, 3C etc…) Open Work Order volume/backlog categorized by age and facility type.

CE: Utilities & Water

Daily production volume vs. capacity limits; Water Quality Test Pass/Fail status; Power/Generator uptime.

CE: Environmental HAZMAT turn-in average processing time; Volume of open environmental discrepancies.

CE: Fire & Emergency

Average Emergency Response Times vs. NFPA/DoD standards; Fire Apparatus Mission Capable (MC) rate.

Base Svcs:

Custodial

Monthly Ktr QC Inspection Pass rate; Volume of validated customer complaints/re-performance requests.

Base Svcs:

Grounds Mx

Acreage completed by date; Vegetation height compliance flags

Base Svcs: Refuse Pickup volume; Recycling diversion rate (tons diverted vs. total tonnage).

Logistics: Vehicle Mx

Fleet Mission Capable (MC) Rate vs. 85% standard; Average Repair Time or Avg Days in shop by critical class (e.g., Fire, MHE). Work in progress

Housing Live Work in Progress and Constraints Dashboard

Logistics:

Transient Alert Live Work in Progress and Constraints Dashboard

War Reserve Material

Live Work in Progress and Constraints Dashboard

Differentiators for a Higher Rating (Good/Outstanding): Differentiators for a Higher Rating (Good/Outstanding in Element 1):

The Government will evaluate proposals more favorably based on the Offeror’s commitment to providing actionable, advanced data visualization beyond the baseline PWS requirements. Higher subjective ratings will be awarded to Offerors whose proposed dashboard mock-ups and supporting data dictionaries demonstrate a firm, enforceable commitment to the following capabilities. All advanced capabilities and innovations favorably evaluated under this element will be incorporated into the final contract as legally binding requirements:

(a) Advanced Operational Insight: Dashboards that provide deep, sub-functional visibility beyond basic pass/fail metrics. Examples of favorably evaluated metrics include real-time labor utilization rates ("wrench time" vs. administrative time), heat maps identifying geographic clusters of infrastructure failure, or supply chain bottleneck visualizations.

(b) Predictive Analytics (Forecasting vs. Reporting): Dashboards that demonstrate a transition from lagging indicators ("what happened") to leading indicators ("what is likely to happen"). Favorable evaluations will be given to Offerors who propose systems capable of utilizing historical trend data to forecast asset degradation or mission impact before a critical failure occurs (e.g., predicting a HVAC failure based on increased work order frequency and parts consumption)

(c) COR Decision Support & Usability: System features explicitly designed to reduce the cognitive load and administrative burden on high-turnover, non-technical military Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs). This includes commitments to deliver features such as automated "flagging" or alerts for degrading performance areas, intuitive drill-down capabilities (from installation-level view to individual work order), and mobile-responsive access.

M 4.4.4. Element 2: Systems Integration & Data Readiness. The Offeror shall provide a Technology & Integration Plan. The Offeror shall provide a clear, executable roadmap detailing how operational data moves from the point of origin (e.g., a technician’s mobile tablet in the field) to the Offeror's dashboard system, and ultimately how it is synchronized with mandatory Government systems like NexGen IT.

For the purpose of this evaluation, Offerors shall assume that no new, third-party, contractor-provided software (e.g., Robotic Process Automation (RPA) bots, middleware) will be granted an Authority to Operate (ATO) on the Government's NIPRNet. Therefore, the Government will not consider proposals that are dependent on the future approval of such software.

The Government will focus its evaluation on the security of the Offeror's proposed dashboard system and the efficiency and realism of their plan to manually synchronize data with Government systems. To be evaluated as Acceptable, the Offeror’s plan shall, at a minimum:

a) Define the Dashboard Hosting Environment: Clearly state that their proposed dashboard system will be hosted in a secure cloud environment that is, at a minimum, FedRAMP Moderate authorized and possesses a Department of Defense (DoD) Provisional Authorization (PA) at Impact Level 4 (IL4) for the protection of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).

b) Detail the Manual Data Synchronization Process: Provide a detailed, step-by-step description of the manual or semi-automated process for synchronizing data between the contractor's system and the Government's NIPR-based NexGen IT system. This plan shall not place the administrative burden of data entry on Government personnel. Acceptable methods include, but are not limited to, the use of scheduled, formatted CSV spreadsheet uploads or other secure flat-file transfer techniques.

Differentiators for a Higher Rating in Element 2 (Good/Outstanding): Given that automated data extraction from NIPRNet is not permitted, the Government will award higher subjective ratings to Offerors who propose a superior "Data Readiness" methodology. This is defined as the Offeror's ability to intelligently and efficiently process, clean, and analyze the manually-exported data to provide near-real-time insights.

The Government will award higher subjective ratings to Offerors who demonstrate a credible and enforceable plan to train and equip their NIPR-cleared workforce to use existing, Government-furnished AI tools (e.g., the GenAI.mil suite) to dramatically improve the speed and quality of this manual data process.

An example of a proposal that the Government would evaluate favorably is one that commits to the following workflow:

(a) A NIPR-cleared contractor employee manually downloads a raw data export from NexGen IT.

(b) That employee then uses a Government-furnished AI tool (e.g., GenAI.mil) to instantly generate a Microsoft Power Query (M code) recipe or Excel Macro (VBA) sequence that cleans, formats, and restructures that raw data into a pristine file without requiring elevated network privileges. This clean file is then immediately uploaded into the contractor's dashboard system.

This "Data Readiness" approach—using Government tools to solve data-formatting problems—will be evaluated significantly more favorably than a basic manual process, as it demonstrates maximum efficiency within the Government's strict security constraints.

M 4.4.5. Element 3: Workforce & Process Innovation Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Workforce & Process Innovation Plan. The evaluation will focus on the Offeror’s credible and enforceable plan to leverage modern, low-risk technologies and methodologies to enhance the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of its workforce. This element is not intended to evaluate hardware that requires significant capital investment or complex host-installation security approvals (e.g., autonomous vehicles, drones). To be evaluated as Acceptable, the Offeror must provide a Workforce & Process Innovation Plan that describes at least one (1) viable process or technological improvement that does not require additional Government funding or new NIPRNet software Authorities to Operate (ATOs).Differentiators for a Higher Rating (Good/Outstanding): The Government will give proposals higher subjective ratings for providing a detailed implementation plan that commits to specific, measurable improvements in the following areas:

(c) Augmented & Virtual Reality (AR/VR) for Training and Maintenance: The Offeror's plan to use AR/VR for purposes such as: Remote Expert Support: Enabling a junior technician at the work site to receive real-time, "over-the-shoulder" guidance from a senior expert in a different location, thereby increasing first-time-fix rates and reducing diagnostic time.

(d) Immersive Training: Providing repeatable, standardized training modules for complex tasks (e.g., maintenance on specialized fire suppression systems or vehicle engines) to reduce the need for costly and time-consuming travel for training

(e) AI-Powered Root Cause Analysis: The Offeror’s process for using Government-furnished AI tools (as identified in Element 2) to analyze historical work order data (e.g., from NexGen IT exports). The plan should detail how the offeror will use this analysis to identify systemic root causes of recurring failures and propose long-term corrective actions, shifting from a reactive to a predictive maintenance posture

(f) Workforce Safety & Ergonomics: The Offeror's plan to deploy modern ergonomic support equipment to its workforce to reduce the risk of strain and injury during repetitive or heavy-lifting tasks (e.g., wearable lift-assist exoskeletons or similar devices)

M 4.4.6 Use of Contractor-Furnished Equipment (CFE): Offerors are permitted and encouraged to propose Contractor-Furnished Equipment (CFE) to execute the technological and process innovations described within Subfactor 2. Any proposed CFE shall remain the property and accountability of the Contractor. The Government will not establish separate Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) or provide direct reimbursement for the capital investment, lease, licensing, or maintenance of such CFE.

Offerors must ensure that all costs associated with proposed CFE are fully incorporated into the proposed Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) rates within Volume III (Price). The Government will evaluate these embedded costs as part of the overall Price Realism analysis.

M 5.0 FACTOR 3 – PRICE

M 5.1 Price Evaluation Overview: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Proposal (submitted via the mandatory Section J Pricing Template) for Reasonableness, Balance, and Realism. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be calculated by summing the Offeror's proposed prices for all Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLINs, plus the Government-provided "plug numbers" for all Cost-Reimbursable (CR) CLINs (e.g., Travel, Materials), for the base period and all option periods, including the six-month extension period authorized by FAR 52.217-8.

M 5.2 Unbalanced Pricing Evaluation. FAR 15.404-1(g) The Government will evaluate proposals for unbalanced pricing in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.404-1(g). 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. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M 5.3 Price Reasonableness (FAR 15.404-1(d)(3)) The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed FFP prices for reasonableness.

(The Government-provided plug numbers for CR CLINs will not be evaluated for reasonableness). Price reasonableness will be determined using one or more of the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b). These techniques may include, but are not limited to, a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and a comparison of proposed prices to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE). A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

M 5.4 Price Realism Analysis (FAR 15.404-1(d)(3)) The Government will conduct a Price Realism Analysis on the proposed FFP CLINs to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement and the performance risk inherent in their proposal. The Government recognizes the unique, rigid statutory financial liabilities imposed by Spanish Labor Law (Article 44 Subrogation) and the applicable Collective Labor Agreements (CLAs), the details of which have been provided as Government Furnished Information (GFI)

a) Purpose of Realism Analysis: The Government will evaluate whether the proposed FFP prices are unrealistically low. An unrealistically low price may indicate a lack of understanding of the mandatory labor and severance costs, an inherent risk of default, or an inability to successfully execute the proposed technical approach..

b) Required Supporting Data (Price Volume): The Government's Price Realism Analysis will be based upon the Offeror's submission of the following data, which the Offeror shall provide as separate appendices within their Price Proposal:

1. Total Compensation Plan: Detailing the proposed annual salaries and fringe benefits for all proposed exempt, salaried (non-CLA) personnel

2. Labor Price Buildup: A detailed breakdown for all labor-bearing FFP CLINs that clearly shows:

• The total calculated cost of the inherited unionized workforce, based on the provided GFI.

• A separate, explicit line item detailing the total calculated cost of any severance liability resulting from a proposed staffing plan that differs from the incumbent workforce detailed in the GFI. If no staffing reductions are proposed, this line item shall be zero.

c) Cross-Volume Analysis & Evaluation:

1. The Government will evaluate the realism of the proposed Total Compensation

Plan against recognized national and regional market conditions to assess the Offeror's ability to recruit and retain qualified management and professional personnel. Proposals offering unfeasibly low annual salaries or inadequate fringe benefits for key leadership roles will be assessed as a high retention and performance risk

2. For the Unionized (CLA) workforce, the Government will analyze the total proposed FFP labor pricing in conjunction with the total proposed Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) identified in the Technical Volume to determine if the pricing realistically covers the mandatory wages, benefits, and taxes required by the Spanish Article 44 Subrogation and the applicable CLA

3. If an Offeror proposes staffing reductions below the incumbent workforce levels in their Technical Volume, the Government will evaluate the Price Volume to ensure the Offeror has realistically priced the associated, mandatory Spanish severance liabilities triggered by such reductions

Draft Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award