Section M - T-BOS DRAFT RFP-07.17.2026.docx

Draft Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

M 1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD - TÜRKIYE 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 Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the best value 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 Cost/Price factor (specifically, the Government-calculated Most Probable Cost (MPC) plus proposed Fixed Fee) to determine the best value proposal.

M 1.3 Relative Order of Importance. The Technical factor is considered significantly more important than evaluated Cost/Price. The Government is willing to incur a higher evaluated cost (Most Probable Cost) for a technically superior proposal, provided the evaluated cost is determined to be realistic and reasonable. However, the Government reserves the right to award to a lower-cost, lower-rated technical proposal if it is determined to provide the best value. As the non-cost factors become more equal among competing proposals, the importance of evaluated Cost/Price (Most Probable Cost) will increase. Subfactor Importance: Within the Technical factor, Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2 are of equal importance. “Acceptable/Unacceptable” Elements: An Offeror must receive an "Acceptable” rating on elements within a subfactor 2 to be eligible for a rating of "Acceptable" for that subfactor. A rating of "Unacceptable" 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 Cost/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 shall submit a minimum of two (2), and a maximum of five (5), recent and relevant contract references. The Government will evaluate the past performance of the Offeror's parent, affiliate, subsidiary, or sister companies if the proposal clearly demonstrates that the resources of the corporate affiliate will be meaningfully involved in the performance of the resulting contract. If meaningful involvement is not demonstrated, the affiliate's past performance will not be evaluated 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 not evaluate the overall maximum ceiling value of the parent contract. However, the Government will evaluate the consolidated, aggregate funded value of all Task/Delivery Orders executed under that single IDIQ vehicle during a continuous twelve (12) month period, as supported by the official funding documentation provided by the Offeror.

(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, geographically co-located site that meets at least two (2) of the following criteria: (1) supported a total population of 500 or more personnel; (2) encompassed a portfolio of at least 250 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 Department of War/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 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.

(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, Regulatory Compliance 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 3.7 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 must receive an 'Acceptable' rating. An Offeror that receives a rating of 'Unacceptable' will be considered ineligible for award. In accordance with RFO 15.202(c)(1), 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 “unknown/neutral” which is considered, '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 above).

(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.

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, Personnel Management, Leadership and Process Innovation, and Subfactor 2, Staffing, Compliance & Logistics. The Government will assign an overall adjectival rating at the Subfactor level for Subfactor 1. and an overall Acceptable/Unacceptable rating at the Subfactor level for Subfactor 2. Individual Elements under Subfactor 1 will not be assigned individual ratings. Instead, the individual Elements represent the distinct areas of evaluation where the Government will document evaluation findings (strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies). These findings will collectively support the holistic, Subfactor 1-level rating assigned by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).

M 4.2 Technical Rating Method and Evaluation Definitions M.4.2.1 Technical Subfactor 1 - Adjectival Ratings 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) Impact of Pass/Fail Elements: To be eligible for an adjectival rating of “Acceptable” for the overall Technical Factor, the Offeror must receive a “Pass” rating for all Pass/Fail elements within Subfactor 2. A “Fail” rating on any individual element will render the entire Technical Factor “Unacceptable.”

M.4.2.2. Technical Subfactor 2 Ratings

(a) Acceptable. Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

(b) Unacceptable. Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation M.4.2.3 Definitions of Evaluation Findings

(a) Definition of Strength. 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 by providing a tangible benefit to the Air Force mission.

(b) Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

(c) Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(d) Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(e) 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.

M 4.3 Subfactor 1: Personnel Management, Leadership and Process Innovation. This subfactor evaluates the Offerors’ management approach for employment, training, and retention of Personnel. It also evaluates the Offerors’ plan to transform post-award reporting and metrics tracking by leveraging modern, low-risk technologies to enhance data integration efficiency that enhance the efficiency and resilience of the Türkiye mission.

M.4.3.1. Element 1: Key Personnel Continuity & Agile Management Plan (Adjectival Rating) The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed Key Personnel Continuity Plan to assess the credibility and effectiveness of their plan to minimize vacancies in essential positions (defined as those positions identified in Technical Exhibit D, Key Personnel). 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.

(a) 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.

(b) 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 ensures key personnel vacancies are filled and staffed within 120-days. This includes, but is not limited to:

1. Evidence of an established talent acquisition pipeline (e.g., dedicated OCONUS recruiters or a documented record of filling similar positions).

2. 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.

(c) 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) Differentiators for a Higher Rating. (Good/Outstanding): In addition to the continuity metrics above, the Government will evaluate the agility and responsiveness of the Offeror's management structure. Strengths may be awarded to Offerors who propose a highly decentralized, agile management structure that empowers local decision-making. Specifically, Strengths may be awarded for:

1. Empowered On-Site Leadership: Providing documented proof that the on-site Program Manager will be delegated direct financial and operational authority to commit corporate resources (e.g., up to a specific dollar threshold) and to legally bind the company in response to urgent Government-directed changes. This capability provides a tangible benefit by eliminating corporate headquarters approval bottlenecks across different time zones, allowing local leadership to partner with the Contracting Officer to solve emerging mission crises in real-time.

2. Decentralized Corporate Authority Structure: Providing documented evidence of the Offeror's established corporate governance policies (e.g., Corporate Delegation of Authority matrices or standard operating procedures) that show on-site Program Manager are granted a high threshold of direct, unencumbered financial and operational authority. This capability provides a tangible benefit by ensuring the local leadership team can immediately commit corporate resources to solve emerging mission crises without requiring lengthy approvals from corporate headquarters across different time zones.

M.4.3.2. Element 2: Workforce Training & Certification Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's plan for onboarding, training, and maintaining the qualifications of the workforce.

(a) 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.

(b) Certification Management & Tracking: The Offeror's proposed system and methodology for tracking all mandatory certifications required by the PWS (e.g., Electrician licenses, Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) refrigerant handling, Vehicle Mechanic Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) certifications, Welding certifications, Fire Fighting certifications etc. The plan must describe the process for ensuring certifications remain current and are renewed prior to expiration.

(c) 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 DoW or Host Nation regulations.

(d) Differentiators for a Higher Rating (Good/Outstanding): The Government will evaluate proposals more favorably by assigning one or more Strengths to Offerors whose Workforce Training & Certification Plan demonstrates a proactive and comprehensive approach to workforce development. 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.4.3.3 Element 3: Comprehensive PWS Performance Dashboards. The Offeror shall provide high-fidelity visual mock-ups (e.g., PowerBI, Tableau, or equivalent) of their proposed Integrated Data Management System (IDMS) dashboards. To be evaluated as Acceptable, the Offeror must provide a supporting Data Dictionary for each Key Performance Indicator (KPI) and 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:

(Visualized in Mock-Ups)

Mandatory Inspection Cycles: Status tracking of 100% of RP assets on the 5-year inspection cycle (3-year for historic assets) and annual boundary/encroachment checks.

Change of Occupancy Maintenance (COM): Active pipeline tracking of vacant-unit "make-ready" (COM) cycle times to minimize wait times for arriving and departing members Monthly visualization of the mandatory 10% random dormitory room inspection program to identify health, life, and safety concerns, directly integrated with NexGen IT work-order submission statuses.

BUILDER SMS Data Integrity & FCI Reconciliations: Real-time status of the Facility Condition Index (FCI), Remaining Service Life (RSL), and Mission Dependency Index (MDI) updates in NexGen IT and BUILDER

Closeout Status: Status tracking of final project closeout packages, demonstrating active coordination, processing, and formal acceptance of DD Form 1354s for timely capitalization of real property assets.

Active tracking of completed construction projects and associated DD Form 1354 submittals, tracking the days elapsed from the "placed-in-service" date to ensure final capitalization occurs within the 10-day limit.

A calendar-style dashboard displaying all incoming taskings, plans, studies, and briefings from base agencies and HHQ, logging real-time suspense dates to ensure compliance

Live pipeline tracking of unscheduled corrective work orders from receipt to closeout, explicitly monitoring the contractually mandated timelines.

Full-Spectrum Work Task Execution Pipeline: Active pipeline tracking of all work orders by priority class (2A, 3A, 3B, 3C), displaying real-time metrics for: 1. Response/Assessment Time: Monitoring the "eyes-on" evaluation and material ordering limits (e.g., 48 hours for 3A, 7 days for 3B, 14 days for 3C). 2. Completion Time: Percentage of tasks completed within mandatory windows (As Scheduled for 2A, 30 days for 3A, 60 days for 3B, and 180 days for 3C).

Continuous tracking of the Critical Materials List inventory levels by system (electrical, structural, HVAC, exterior plumbing), automatically triggering alerts when stock levels fall below the Government-approved standby threshold required for rapid Priority 1 emergency response

Preventative Maintenance & Inspection (PM&I) Execution: Active monitoring of the ELMS 90-day due-in listing, tracking the timeline from ELMS notification to PM&I scheduling/completion

(a) Differentiators for a Higher Rating (Good/Outstanding): To be evaluated as Acceptable, the Offeror’s proposed dashboards must, at a minimum, visualize the performance metrics required by the PWS Service Delivery Summary (SDS) and the table above. The Government will assign one or more Strengths to Offerors whose proposed dashboard mock-ups and supporting data dictionaries demonstrate a firm, enforceable commitment to providing actionable, advanced data visualization that provides tangible benefits beyond the baseline SDS reporting. The Offeror's entire proposed IDMS and dashboard solution, including all advanced capabilities proposed under this element, will be incorporated into the final contract as legally binding requirements upon award. Examples of capabilities that may be awarded a Strength include, but are not limited to:

1. Diagnostic & Constraint Visibility: Dashboards that provide the Government with real-time insight into why work is not progressing. This could include visualizations for: Awaiting Parts (AWP) Status, tracking the age of AWP requests against the 14-day ordering requirement and providing estimated delivery dates.

2. Resource Constraints: Identifying specific shops or labor categories that represent a bottleneck in the repair cycle.

3. Proactive Performance & Quality Management (Forecasting vs. Reporting): Dashboards that shift oversight from reactive to proactive. This could include visualizations for Work Order Aging, automatically flagging work orders that are approaching their required completion date (e.g., Priority 3C work orders at Day 160 of their 180-day window).

4. First-Time Fix / Rework Rate: Tracking instances where a new work order is generated for the same asset within a short period (e.g., 7-14 days), indicating a quality control issue.

5. Drill-Down Capability: Allowing a Contracting Officer Representative (COR) to filter metrics by a specific facility, work-group, or geographic area on base to identify systemic failure clusters.

M.4.3.4 Element 4: Systems Integration & Data Readiness. The Government will evaluate the realism, completeness, and enforceability of the Offeror's Systems Integration and Data Readiness Plan. The evaluation will assess the Offeror’s specific, actionable processes for capturing, formatting, and migrating active operational records, completed and ongoing maintenance logs, and daily service execution data generated in support of PWS requirements. To be evaluated as Acceptable, the Offeror’s plan must:

(a) Meet all minimum security, hosting, and synchronization constraints outlined in Section L.4.1.5 (including FedRAMP Moderate and DoW IL5 PA compliance, and ensuring zero data entry burden is placed on Government personnel).

(b) Commit to and detail at least one (1) viable process or technological improvement that does not require additional Government funding or new NIPRNet software Authorities to Operate (ATOs)

(c) Differentiators for a Higher Rating (Good/Outstanding): The Government will assign a Strength to an Offeror who proposes a credible, enforceable, and highly efficient workflow utilizing existing, Government-furnished AI tools to process, clean, and analyze manually exported operational data. To merit a Strength, the proposed workflow must:

1. Demonstrably accelerate data migration and synchronization timelines compared to standard manual processing.

2. Significantly reduce the risk of human error in data formatting and transfer.

3. Minimize the time and level of effort required by the Government to validate the migrated data.

4. Clearly prove that the NIPR-cleared workforce is fully integrated into this workflow without requiring elevated network privileges or new software installations.

M 4.3.5. Element 6: 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 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:

(a) 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.

(b) 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

(c) AI-Powered Root Cause Analysis: The Offeror’s process for using Government-furnished AI tools 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 M 4.3.5.1 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 this subfactor. Under this Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) arrangement, the Government will not establish separate Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for the acquisition of CFE. Instead, all allowable, allocable, and reasonable costs associated with the capital investment, lease, licensing, or maintenance of proposed CFE must be fully detailed and proposed as direct or indirect costs within Volume III (Cost/Price) in accordance with the Offeror's approved accounting practices. These proposed CFE costs will be subject to the Government's Cost Realism analysis to ensure they reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, are consistent with the Offeror’s proposed technical approach, and are compliant with applicable cost principles. Property ownership and accountability for any CFE costs reimbursed directly by the Government will be determined in accordance with RFO Part 45.

M 4.4. Subfactor 2: Staffing, Compliance & Logistics (Unacceptable/Acceptable) This subfactor evaluates the realism of the offeror’s primary staffing plan and the sufficiency of the Offeror's foundational operational plans. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach on a pass/fail basis to ensure the proposed staffing levels, 90-day phase-in schedule, Turkish collective labor agreement (CLA) implementation methodology (specifically regarding Turkish labor law compliance, severance/seniority liabilities, and union coordination), and data integration security protocols (including host-nation spectrum approvals, TURAF gate access controls, and IL5-compliant networks) strictly comply with all mandatory PWS and host-nation requirements.

M.4.4.1. Element 1: Staffing Plan and Basis of Estimate. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed Organizational Structure and Staffing Plan for its sufficiency and realism. To be rated as Acceptable, the Offeror's proposal must include:

(a) 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 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) counts provided in the Staffing Plan.

(b) A comprehensive Staffing Plan and supporting Basis of Estimate: A comprehensive Staffing Plan and supporting BOE. The Staffing Plan must provide the proposed 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:

1. 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.

2. 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).

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

(c) The Government will evaluate the realism of the proposed Planning Factors and the calculation of Productive Hours. Proposals with unrealistic, mathematically unsound, or unsubstantiated staffing estimates that create performance risk, or those that fail to comply with the PWS and Turkish labor law/CLA prohibitions on dual-hatting, will be rated as Unacceptable (Fail).

M.4.4.2 Element 2: Phase-In Plan. 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 – Instruction to Offerors 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 and supporting narrative that addresses each of the following five (5) key transition activities:

(a) Operational Stand-Up: Establishment or transition of local business registration in Türkiye, setting up local corporate banking, securing a Turkish Tax Identification Number (Vergi Kimlik Numarası), and the formal engagement of qualified Turkish legal, tax, and labor advisors fluent in both Turkish Commercial Law and Turkish Labor Law.

(b) Leadership Onboarding and Relocation: Timeline for key personnel mobilization, securing host-nation base access, and obtaining required Turkish work permits/visas where applicable.

(c) Incumbent Workforce Capture and In-Processing: Comprehensive strategy for transitioning the existing Local National (LN) workforce in strict compliance with the Turkish Labor Law (No. 4857) and the active Collective Labor Agreement (CLA) with the Türk Harb-İş Union, specifically addressing the assumption or mitigation of accrued severance (Kıdem Tazminatı) and seniority liabilities.

(d) Government-Furnished Property (GFP) and Historical Data Transfer: Joint inventory schedules with the incumbent contractor and procedures for taking accountability of GFP and historical data.

(e) Supply Chain Transition and Local Vendor Agreements: Transitioning critical local vendor agreements, securing required local subcontractors, and establishing supply chains within Türkiye to ensure seamless logistical support on Day 91."

M 4.4.3 Element 3. Turkish Labor Law and Legal Counsel.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s commitment to retain a qualified Turkish-licensed attorney or attorney partnership to provide qualified legal counsel for navigating the Turkish labor environment upon contract award. This is an Acceptable/Unacceptable element. To be rated "Acceptable," the Offeror must submit a complete, signed Letter of Commitment, Conditional Agreement, or Memorandum of Agreement with a Turkish licensed attorney or attorney partnership that meets the minimum qualifications specified in Section L of the solicitation.

The Government will perform a compliance check to verify the following:

(a) Submission of a Signed Commitment: The proposal contains a signed agreement demonstrating that the qualified Turkish-licensed attorney or attorney partnerships committed to representing the Offeror contingent upon contract award.

(b) Verification of Qualifications: The Government will evaluate the documentation provided by the Offeror to verify that the selected attorney or attorney partnership is qualified.

The evaluation will confirm that:

1. The attorney is duly licensed to practice in Türkiye and or the attorney partnership is duly established under Turkish law and the attorneys assigned to perform the services are duly admitted to practice law in Türkiye

2. The attorney or attorney partnership demonstrates, through its own corporate experience records, a minimum of five (5) years of direct experience representing clients in cases involving Turkish Labor Law, specifically Law No. 4857 and Law No. 6356 (Unions and Collective Labor Agreement Law).

(c) Scope of Representation: The agreement must clearly state that the attorney or attorney partnership will provide legal counsel and representation for the Offeror on all matters related to the Türk Harb-İş Collective Labor Agreement (CLA), employee grievances, mediation, and litigation in Turkish labor courts for the duration of the contract period of performance:

A proposal that fails to include a signed, binding agreement or fails to demonstrate that the selected law firm meets the minimum qualifications will be rated "Unacceptable" (Fail) for this element, rendering the entire proposal ineligible for award.

M 4.4.4. Element 4: Systems Integration & Security. 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 ATO on the Government's NIPRNet. The Government will focus its evaluation on the security of the Offeror's proposed dashboard system and the realism of their plan to manually synchronize data. To be evaluated as Acceptable, the Offeror’s plan shall, at a minimum:

(a) Define the Dashboard Hosting Environment: 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 DoW Provisional Authorization (PA) at Impact Level 5 (IL5) to prevent spillage of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) extracted from Government systems.

(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. 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.

M.5.0 FACTOR 3 – PRICE

M.5.1 Executive Summary & Overview: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price/Cost proposal for completeness, reasonableness, balance, and realism. Because this solicitation anticipates the award of Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract, with Cost-Reimbursable (CR) and Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) elements, the Government will perform a Cost Realism Analysis on the CPFF line items to determine the Most Probable Cost (MPC) to the Government. The MPC will be used for the purpose of evaluation and determining best value.

The evaluation will be conducted based on the following core criteria:

M.5.1.1. Reasonableness: IAW RFO 15.202(d), the Government will determine price reasonableness through evaluation of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as the sum of: (1) the evaluated Most Probable Cost (MPC) plus the proposed fixed fee of all CPFF CLINs (including base and option periods); (2) the Government-provided values for all Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs; and (3) the $5,000 Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLIN 0099, Post Award Conference. 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. The Contracting Officer anticipates the establishment of adequate price competition and use of comparison of proposed prices in accordance with RFO 15.404-1(b)(1) to determine price reasonableness. However, the Government may use other price analysis techniques defined in RFO 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness.

M.5.1.2. Cost Realism Analysis: IAW RFO 15.404-3, the Government will perform a Cost Realism Analysis on the Offeror’s proposed CPFF CLIN prices. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s Technical Proposal.

When contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis, evaluations shall include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort and to evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract. If the Government determines that the Offeror’s proposed costs are unrealistically low, the Government will adjust the proposed costs to reflect the MPC of performance. The MPC is determined by adjusting the Offeror's proposed cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The proposed fixed fee dollar amount will not be adjusted during the cost realism analysis unless it is mathematically incorrect or exceeds statutory limitations. The resultant MPC shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value (RFO 15.404-2, and 15.404-3(b)). The Price/Cost Evaluation Team may confer with the Technical Evaluation Team for assistance in determining cost realism. If an Offeror's proposed costs are evaluated as unrealistic, the Government will adjust the costs to the MPC for evaluation. However, an unrealistically low-cost proposal may be evaluated as reflecting a lack of technical understanding, which may result in an 'Unacceptable' technical rating and render the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

M 5.1.3. Completeness: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price/Cost proposal for completeness based on the requirements contained in Section L of the solicitation. A proposal is complete if the Offeror provides all data and information required by Section L of this solicitation. This includes, but is not limited to:

Pricing for all Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs) for the base period and all option periods.

Ensuring that all CPFF CLIN cost elements (labor rates, indirect rates, travel, materials, subcontractor costs, etc.) are properly documented.

Verifying that all figures are mathematically correct and fully traceable to the Technical Proposal.

Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be deemed unacceptable and excluded from further consideration.

M.5.1.4. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for unbalanced pricing in accordance with RFO 15.404-6. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more 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 it determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.