Atch 7 - AFMS3 3.0 Section M V2.pdf

ATTACHMENT 7

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

2.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Methodology

3.0 PROPOSAL VOLUME EVALUATION FACTOR OVERVIEW

3.1 Volume I: Administrative

3.1.1 Offeror Company Executive Summary/Cover Letter

3.1.2 Completed SF 33 and Amendments (if applicable)

3.1.3 Completed Representations and Certifications

3.1.4 Financial/Other Resources

3.1.5 Organizational Conflict of Interest/Mitigation Plan (if applicable)

3.1.6 Proposal Adequacy Checklist (PAC)

3.1.7 Exceptions

3.1.8 Small Business Subcontracting Plan

3.2 Volume II: Gate 1– Top Secret Facility Clearance Level

3.3 Volume III: Gate 2- Small Business Participation Plan

3.3.1 Small Business Utilization Rating

3.4 Volume IV: Technical Past Experience

3.4.1 Technical Past Experience Evaluation

3.4.2 Maximum scoring

3.5 Volume V: Technical Past Experience Ratings

3.5.1 Technical Past Experience Ratings Evaluation

3.5.2 Maximum Scoring

3.6 Volume VI: IDIQ Cost/Price Proposal

3.6.1 Cost/Price Proposal

3.6.2 PECP Realism Analysis

3.6.3 Completeness

3.6.4 Unbalanced Pricing

3.6.5 Fair and Reasonable Price

3.6.6 TEP

3.7 Volume VII – Initial Task Order Proposal

4.0 AWARD

END OF SECTION M

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis for Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. The Government intends to award the contract following an objective assessment and validation of the Highest Technical Rated Offeror (HTRO) with a Fair and Reasonable Price (FRP) -- consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300 and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

1.1.1 Best value is defined as the Offeror who is the HTRO with a Government-validated technical score and a price proposal that is complete, balanced, fair and reasonable, with a realistic PECP. The Government is not selecting the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable proposal and will not conduct a subjective tradeoff.

1.1.2 A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is deemed, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

1.1.3 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on the evaluation criteria described below.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be awarded. The Government intends to award a single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Firm Fixed Priced (FFP)/Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)/Time and Materials (T&M)/Cost Reimbursable (CR)/Fixed Priced Incentive Fee (FPIF) hybrid contract. Contract type will be determined at the Task Order level.

1.3 IDIQ Ceiling. $972M

1.4 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order. The Initial Task Order – Air Force Agency for Modeling and Simulation (AFAMS) M&S Task Order –will satisfy the minimum order requirement. This is not a requirements contract, and the Government is not obligated to issue any task order(s) beyond the minimum quantity as stated on page 4 of the SF33.

1.5 Proposals Substantiation. An Offeror’s submittal of unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Technical Past Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government would unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero (0) points.

1.6 Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions with one, some, or all Offerors if necessary. Evaluation Notices (ENs) may be used for clarification or communication purposes as well as discussions. Responses to the ENs for cost and technical past experience will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated herein.

Failure to respond to ENs will eliminate the Offeror from further evaluation and consideration for award.

2.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Methodology.

The Government will utilize a HTRO methodology. The HTRO method requires the Offeror to score itself on Volume IV Technical Past Experience, based on the criteria described in Section L Instructions to Offerors. The Government will rank all proposals based on self-rated scores, from the highest self-rated scored Offeror to the lowest self-rated scored Offeror. The Government will begin the evaluation with the highest self-rated rated offeror.

The Government intends to validate the Technical Past Experience and Cost of the Offeror with the highest Government-validated self-rated score using the following steps:

Step 1: The Government will identify and select the HTRO received and then move to Step 2.

Step 2: The Government will ensure compliance with Volume I – Administrative. Non-compliant proposals will not be moved to Step 3. In the event of the HTRO proposal being non-compliant, the Government will revert back to Step 1.

Step 3: The Government will ensure the HTRO proposal is adequate utilizing Attachment four, Proposal Adequacy Checklist. Non-adequate proposals will not be moved to Step 4. In the event of the HTRO proposal being non-adequate, the Government will revert back to Step 1.

Note: After step 1, the Government reserves the right to conduct the steps in any order it deems appropriate. In the event multiple Offerors have the same self-rated score the Government will proceed through steps 2 and 6 with all Offerors having the highest self-rated score.

Step 4: Government will validate Gate 1 – Top Secret (TS) Facility Clearance Level (FCL) on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Only the Offeror deemed acceptable will move to Step 5. Unacceptable Offerors will be eliminated from further evaluation. In the event of an Offeror not having a TS FCL, the Government will revert back to Step 1.

Step 5: Government will validate Gate 2 –Small Business Participation Plan on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Only the Offeror deemed acceptable, move to Step 6. Unacceptable Small Business Participation Plans will be eliminated from further evaluation. In the event a Small Business Participation Plan is determined to be unacceptable, the Government will revert back to Step 1.

Step 6: The Government will validate Work Samples to ensure they meet the qualifications stated in Attachment 6, Section L, paragraph 3.4.1.3. Work Samples that do not meet these qualifications will not be further evaluated and any self-reported scores for that Work Sample will be decremented.

Step 7: The Government will validate the self-rated score of the HTRO for Technical Past Experience with work samples. The Offeror with the validated highest technical rated self-score will move to Step 8.

Note 1: In the event the self-rated score cannot be validated the Government will go back to Step 1 and identify the next HTRO.

Note 2: In the event multiple offers have the same validated scores, the Government will use tiebreakers from the technical evaluation. The score for each tiebreaker will come from the Offeror Response in column D of the self-rated scoring matrix, i.e. for Tie Break 1 Offeror 1 inputs 511 in column D and Offeror 2 inputs 500, Offeror 1 would win the tie breaker and be the HTRO. No further tie breakers would be used, however if both Offerors input the same score the next tie breaker would be used and so

on. The following tiebreakers will be used in the following order:

Tie Breaker 1 The first tiebreaker shall be - Number of Joint Live Virtual and Constructive, Joint Land Component Constructive Training Capability (JLVC, JLCCTC), and the Air, Space, and Cyberspace Constructive Environment (ASCCE) integration and validation test exercises/events supported within the last 5 calendar years (PWS section 2.4.3).

Tie Breaker 2 The second tiebreaker shall be – Number of M&S, DMO, and/or LVC Events you supported with contractor FTEs within the last 5 calendar years. (PWS section 2.3.1).

Tie Breaker 3 The third tiebreaker shall be – Number of Tier 1, 2, 3, or 4 Exercises or training events where your company provided Testing or Verification, Validation & Accreditation within the last 5 calendar years.

(PWS section 2.3.3).

Tie Breaker 4 The fourth tiebreaker shall be– Number of M&S, DMO, LVC, or Aviation Training related Authority To Operate (ATO) your company maintained or updated (PWS section 2.6).

Tie Breaker 5 The fifth tiebreaker shall be – Number of FTEs with an active DoD Cybersecurity Certification in accordance with DoD Instruction (DoDI) 8510.01. (PWS sections 2.6)

Tie Breaker Determination The Offeror with the highest score in the first tiebreaker will be considered the HTRO and will be evaluated for a price proposal that is complete, balanced, fair and reasonable, with a realistic PECP. If the tied Offerors score the same for the first tiebreaker, then the evaluation will move to the second tiebreaker and so on.

If all tiebreakers are evaluated at maximum scores, the final tiebreaker will be lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP is defined in Step 9 below.

In the event there is a tie and the Government needs to validate two proposals, this will fulfill the requirement for Adequate Price Competition as directed by FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(I)(A).

Step 8: The Government Cost team will evaluate the cost of the HTRO to ensure cost is complete, balanced, fair and reasonable, with a realistic Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP). If the pricing proposal is determined complete, balanced, fair and reasonable, with a realistic PECP, the Government will proceed to Step 9. If Offeror’s cost is determined to be complete, balanced, fair and reasonable, with a realistic PECP an award is made to this Offeror. However, if the Offeror’s price is not determined complete, balanced, fair and reasonable, with a realistic PECP, then the Government will revert back to Step 1. An award will be made if this Offeror successfully meets all the evaluation criteria.

Step 9: The Government will calculate the TEP by applying notional hours to a predetermined mix of labor categories from Attachment 5 across a 5-year period of performance with a –8, 6-month extension of services. The sum of these notional hours applied to the Offeror’s proposed IDIQ-level labor rates for each labor category will determine the TEP. Notional hours will be used for Government evaluation purposes only and will NOT be disclosed to any Offerors. Unless Government conducts discussions IAW section 1.6, the rates proposed by the Offeror on Attachment 5 will become contractually binding NTE rates, and shall be used to price all future Task Orders. Contractually binding NTE rates means rates provided will not be exceeded during the life of the IDIQ without a bilateral modification between the Contractor and Government. If discussions are required, any updated rates proposed will become contractually binding NTE rates and shall be used to price future Task Orders.

Step 10: The Government will award the initial task order based on Offeror’s inputs into Attachment 10 in conjunction with the IDIQ award.

3.0 PROPOSAL VOLUME EVALUATION FACTOR OVERVIEW

The Government will use the following evaluation factors to evaluate Offerors’ proposals according to the methodology set forth in section 2.1. The Government will then validate and evaluate the factors as outlined below:

Volume I: Administrative Volume II: Gate 1: – Top Secret Facility Clearance Level Volume III: Gate 2: – Small Business Participation Plan Volume IV: Technical Past Experience Volume V: Technical Past Experience Ratings Volume VI: IDIQ Cost/Price Proposal Volume VII: Initial Task Order Proposal

3.1 Volume I: Administrative

This volume will only be evaluated for compliance of submitted information required to be considered eligible for award. Non-compliant proposals will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award. Only Offeror’s whose proposals are determined to be compliant will be further considered.

3.1.1 Offeror Company Executive Summary/Cover Letter

3.1.2 Completed SF 33 and Amendments (if applicable)

3.1.3 Completed Representations and Certifications

3.1.4 Financial/Other Resources

Based on the Offerors written submission, to include applicable DCAA and DCMA related documents, and other evidence to support the explanation, the Contracting Officer will determine if the Offeror is responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1. Offerors determined nonresponsible are not eligible for award in accordance with FAR 9.103 and will not be further evaluated.

3.1.5 Organizational Conflict of Interest Assessment/Mitigation Plan (if applicable)

The Contracting Officer will review the submitted mitigation plan and make a determination as to whether the plan adequately resolves the issues and provides adequate protection to both the Offeror and the Government. If an OCI mitigation plan is deemed to be unacceptable or an OCI is not mitigable then the Government may deem the Offeror’s proposal as unacceptable and ineligible for award.

3.1.6 Proposal Adequacy Checklist (PAC)

The Contracting Officer will review the PAC for completeness. Each item must have a designated proposal page number or an explanation of why that item is not applicable or does not have a proposal page number. The Contracting Officer will review each item and cross reference it to the proposal as well as review the not applicable items to ensure proper designation.

Failure to complete the PAC or provide the required applicable documents in the PAC will result in the proposal being non-compliant. Non-compliant proposals will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award.

3.1.7 Exceptions

Any exception determined unacceptable by the Government may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

3.1.8 Small Business Subcontracting Plan

The Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated for adequacy, ensuring that the required information, goals, and assurances are included IAW FAR 19.704.

3.2 Volume II: Gate 1– Top Secret Facility Clearance Level

To be eligible for award, an Offeror must have the required clearance at the time of proposal submission as demonstrated by submittal of completed DD254. Sponsorship will not be granted.

GATE 1: TS Facility Clearance Level

Rating Description

Acceptable Offeror completely filled out and submitted DD254 and possesses a TS

FCL.

Unacceptable Offeror does not possess TS FCL and/or Offeror did not completely fill out and submit DD254.

3.3 Volume III: Gate 2- Small Business Participation Plan

Each Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) shall be validated, based on the elements below, to determine if the Offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the participation objectives and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The SBPP must address each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist, including the company names with CAGE codes the Offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract;

and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and,

iii) The goals must be expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned contracted dollars. The total Small Business participation shall be a minimum of 20% of the total contract value.

Minimum Quantitative Requirements

Of the 20% Small Business participation, the following goals must also be met:

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): 5% Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): 5% Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB): 3% Service-Disabled Veteran- Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): 2.5% Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone): 3%

3.3.1 Small Business Utilization Rating

The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the Offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Participation objective of a minimum of 20% of the total planned contracted dollars. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Utilization factor. A rating of unacceptable for Small Business Participation will be considered a deficiency and render the Offeror ineligible for award without revising the proposal.

Small Business Utilization Rating

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business participation objective within the terms of the requirement.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to indicate an adequate approach and understanding of the small business participation objectives within the terms of the requirement.

3.4 Volume IV: Technical Past Experience

The Government will validate self-rated scores based on the guidance listed in each subsection below.

3.4.1 Technical Past Experience Evaluation.

The Government will validate the self-rated scores of the HTRO. To do this, the Government will use the work samples provided by the Offeror. If the Government is unable to find the work sample qualifications as detailed in Section L paragraph 3.4.1.3 within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc., the Government will not search further for the substantiating information. If the Government is unable to validate that Offeror’s self-rated score based on the work samples and Cross Reference Matrix, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s self-rated score, potentially down to zero (0) points.

The Government will only adjust the Offeror’s self-rated score downward, not upward. Such adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government and are based upon the substantiation of the self-rated score provided by the Offeror. If the Government downward adjusts the Offeror’s self-rated score as a result of the validation process, and that Offeror is no longer the highest Government-validated self-rated Offeror, then the Government will re-rank the proposals based on the updated score and begin the evaluation process again with the new highest Offeror’s self-rated score. This process will continue until the Government identifies the highest Government-validated self-rated score.

3.4.2 Maximum scoring.

The maximum scores for each Element within the Technical Past Experience scoring criteria are outlined below:

Category Max. Possible Points Offeror's Calculated

Score

TASK 1 - PROVIDE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 26,000 0

TASK 2 – M&S STRATEGIC SUPPORT/ PROCESS

IMPROVEMENT 6,000 0

TASK 3 – M&S OPERATIONAL SUPPORT 48,000 0

TASK 4 – M&S TECHNICAL SUPPORT

SERVICES 8,000 0

TASK 5 – M&S INNOVATION SUPPORT

SERVICES 6,000 0

TASK 6 – M&S CYBERSECURITY 24,000 0

TASK 7 – OTHER M&S SERVICES 8,000 0

MISCELLANEOUS TASKS & CONSIDERATIONS 6,000 0

Total 132,000 0

The maximum score for Past Experience is 132,000

3.4.3 Teaming Arrangement. The teaming arrangement, if applicable, will be evaluated for the following:

Each team member’s company name, address, CAGE code, and UEI number is included.

Team member’s relationship with the prime Offeror is included

The performance area(s) in which the prime intends to utilize the team member for performance is identified. If multiple performance areas are anticipated, all are listed in a single cell.

Performance areas shall be identified by listing the applicable PWS paragraph(s) and the PWS paragraph title(s).

Commitment signed by Offeror and subcontractor certifying that if a contract is awarded resulting from the proposal, the parties commit to joint performance as proposed

If the teaming arrangement is not completed in accordance with the above and a signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Technical Past Experience Proposal, subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

3.5 Volume V: Technical Past Experience Ratings

3.5.1 Technical Past Experience Ratings Evaluation.

3.5.1.1 The Government will then validate Technical Past Experience Ratings via the Offerors CPARS or PPQ. The Government will evaluate the Technical Past Performance Ratings of each work sample provided by the Offeror in support of their Technical Past Experience self-rated score. The Government’s evaluation will assess the Offeror’s/Team Member’s/Subcontractor’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s/Team Member’s/Subcontractor’s demonstrated performance record.

3.5.1.2 Subcontractor Consent Letter. The Offeror shall provide a subcontractor or team member consent letter for each subcontractor or team member included in the above teaming arrangement.

If a subcontractor consent letter is not provided subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

3.5.2 Maximum Scoring.

The maximum scores for the Technical Past Experience Ratings scoring criteria is 50,000 points. See below:

3.6 Volume VI: IDIQ Cost/Price Proposal

3.6.1 Cost/Price Proposal

The Offeror’s IDIQ cost/price proposal (Narrative and Template) will be evaluated using Price Analysis, Cost Analysis, and Cost Realism techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404, for a price proposal that is complete, balanced, fair and reasonable with a realistic PECP. Only proposals determined to be reasonable, complete, balanced, and with a PECP determined to be realistic will be eligible for award.

This evaluation encompasses all labor categories, as well as the initial task order associated with this solicitation.

3.6.2 PECP Analysis

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and first-tier subcontractors’ PECPs for realism by assessing the compatibility of proposed labor rates (IAW) FAR 52.222-46 – Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (July 29, 2022). First-tier subcontractors are defined as the immediate subcontractor from the prime. For the PECP to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort IAW the scope of the PWS and if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency, on recognized national and regional compensation surveys.

Offerors PECP will be evaluated at the IDIQ-Level and applied to the initial Task Order. There will be no further subsequent PECP realism analysis at the Task Order-level.

Professional compensation that is evaluated as unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, may be viewed as evidence of an Offeror's failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements; constituting sufficient cause to reject such proposal (accounting post award, it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees).

3.6.3 Completeness

Cost proposals will be evaluated for completeness by assessing the level of detail of the Offeror-provided Cost data for all requirements in the PWS and assessing the traceability of estimates.

Established rounding methodology is employed throughout Cost proposal. For the Cost data to be complete, the Offeror, and its subcontractors, must provide all the data necessary. The amount of data needed may vary depending on the requirements. The Government will evaluate the completeness of both the Offeror’s IDIQ labor rate pricing and the Offeror’s initial task order pricing. If the Government determines a price proposal to be incomplete, the Government may not be able to further evaluate the proposal for reasonableness and balance and may not be able to make award to that Offeror. In this case, the Government will determine whether to enter into discussions with the Offeror IAW section 1.6 or proceed to the Offeror with the next highest Government-validated self-rated score.

3.6.4 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to cost, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. A proposal may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government will evaluate the balance of both the Offeror’s IDIQ labor rate pricing and the Offeror’s initial task order pricing.

3.6.5 Fair and Reasonable Price

The Government will evaluate both price and costs using price and cost analysis procedures in FAR

15.404 IAW FAR 15.403-4, 15.403-5, and 15.404, by assessing the acceptability of the Offeror's methodology used in developing the cost estimates. The government will conduct price and cost analysis on the Offerors Volume VI – IDIQ Cost/Price Proposal, to include the pricing narrative and direct labor rates, escalation, G&A, fringe, overhead, profit and fee, and locality percentages on Attachment 5 -

AFMS3 3.0 AFMS3 Labor Pricing Template. For the cost to be reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. Reasonableness considers the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions and other factors that affect the ability of an Offeror to perform the contract requirements.

Reasonableness depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including but not limited to:

a. Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the Offeror's business or of the contract performance;

b. Generally accepted sound business practices, arm’s length bargaining, Federal and State laws and regulations, etc.;

c. The contractor's responsibilities to the Government, other customers, the owners of the business, employees, and the public at large; and

d. Any significant deviations from the Offeror's established practices.

3.6.6 TEP

The Government will calculate the TEP by applying notional hours to a predetermined mix of labor categories from Attachment 5 across a 5-year period of performance with a –8, 6-month extension of services. The sum of these notional hours applied to the Offeror’s proposed IDIQ-level labor rates for each labor category will determine the TEP. Notional hours will be used for Government evaluation purposes only and will NOT be disclosed to any Offerors. Unless Government conducts discussions IAW section 1.6, the rates proposed by the Offeror on Attachment 5 will become contractually binding NTE rates and shall be used to price all future Task Orders. The rates on Attachment 5 covers the FFP and CPFF contract types on the IDIQ, all other contract types (T&M and FPIF) will be negotiated at the Task Order level. If discussions are required, any updated rates proposed will become contractually binding NTE rates and shall be used to price future Task Orders.

3.7 Volume VII – Initial Task Order Proposal

Offeror’s Initial Task Order proposal will be verified to ensure Offerors are using pricing from Attachment 5 AFMS3 3.0 AFMS3 Labor Pricing Template.

Offeror’s Initial Task Order proposal will be evaluated as complete, balanced, and fair and reasonable using the techniques above in para 3.6.1. The Offeror’s Initial Task Order will be subject to Price Analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The Offeror’s Initial Task Order labor mix will be evaluated against the requirements of Attachment 9 –TO1 PWS.

4.0 AWARD

IDIQ award will be made to the responsible HTRO with a Top-Secret Facility Clearance Level, Acceptable Small Business Participation Plan, and a price proposal that is complete, balanced, fair and reasonable, with a realistic PECP. For the purpose of prescribing labor rates to the Basic/IDIQ, an associated PECP-evaluation will be conducted IAW provision 52.222-46 (subject to pricing template at Attachment 5).

This award is subject to certified cost and pricing data. Upon notification by the Government that the HTRO is the apparent awardee, the Offeror will need to certify the cost and pricing data submitted under its proposal. The Offeror will not be able to change cost and pricing data after proposal submission unless requested to do so by the Government.

END OF SECTION M