Atch 9 Mobile Sensors Section M rev1.docx

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-900 EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Section Methodology - This is a competitive, subjective trade-off source selection conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplement by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award a single award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business Participation, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in section II below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (organized by volume):

A. General

1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded – The Government intends to award one (1) Mobile Sensor Operations and Maintenance IDIQ contract from FA7022-21-R-0002 and one initial Firm-Fixed Priced (FFP) Task Order concurrently.

2. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP – The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP).

3. Correction Potential of Proposals – The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. Those offers which fail to meet the material requirement of the RFP will be deemed unacceptable and removed from further consideration.

4. Discussion Phase

4.1 The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. Once the above conditions have been satisfied, those in the consideration pool will be forwarded to the discussions phase and the determination will be made whether discussions are required. If discussions are not required, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will make a recommendation to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) based on FAR 15.101-1 Tradeoff process.

4.2 If discussions are required, a competitive range determination will be made from those within the consideration pool. If an offeror’s proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from the competitive range, no further revisions to that offeror’s proposal shall be accepted or considered. The contracting officer may request or allow proposal revisions to clarify and document understandings reached during negotiations. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. The contracting officer will establish a common cut-off date only for receipt of final proposal revisions. Requests for final proposal revisions shall advise offerors that the final proposal revisions shall be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.

4.3 Discussions will be initiated by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) upon issuance of Evaluation Notices (EN) to the offerors within the competitive range. ENs may be orally briefed to offerors prior to written release to ensure complete understanding by the respective offeror of any discrepancies.

4.4 Any offeror excluded at any time during the source selection process will be afforded the opportunity to request either a pre-award or post-award debriefing.

5. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

5.1 This is a best value source selection utilizing the subjective trade-off process to determine the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements as stated in this solicitation. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government will conduct a price analysis to determine whether proposed prices are fair, reasonable and balanced. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate the Mobile Sensors IDIQ:

(a) Factor I: Technical Capability (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings)

(b) Factor II. Past Performance

(c) Factor III. Cost/Price

(d) Factor IV. Small Business Participation Submission

5.2 Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, technical capability (factor I), which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, is the most important followed by past performance (factor II), cost/price (factor III), and small business participation submission (factor IV). The order of importance is in descending order, with factor I being the most important and factor IV being the least important. The relative order of importance of the non-cost/price factors is: factor I, factor II, and factor IV. Within Factor I, subfactors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are equal of importance. Technical, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, and past performance when combined are significantly more important, than cost/price, and small business participation submission.

B. Completed RFP – Volume I

The Government will ensure the offeror’s proposal provided the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale, appropriately completed “fill-in” clauses, and all other information required.

C. Factor 1: Technical Capability & Technical Risk – Volume II

1. Ratings. Each offeror’s response to Factor 1, Technical Capability, will be assessed and assigned ratings using Tables 2A and 2B of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 Mar 2016, provided below.

2. Evaluation process. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the government’s requirement. The government will utilize the Technical Rating Method contained within Table 2A, which includes the evaluation findings of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal when determining the Technical color rating. Technical ratings will be assigned at the sub-factor level.

Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical capability in meeting the requirement. Technical Risk rating will be assigned at the subfactor level.

Technical Ratings:

Table 2A

2.1 Technical Risk Rating: Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings:

Table 2B

2.2 General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated , based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the choose applicable document - PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

3. Sub-factor 1: Staffing Plan

3.1 Element 1: Recruit, qualify, hire and retain qualified and experienced personnel to operate and maintain the systems in a harsh marine environment; Element 2: Ensure qualified personnel at contract award; Element 3: Demonstrate staffing subject matter expertise in mission operations; Element 5: Demonstrate staffing understanding of the importance of relationships with our Mission Partners (MSC, Planners, Analysts, DLA, Riverside Research Institute, etc.) for Radar manning/O&M:

3.1.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in providing radar operations and maintenance support, as well as understanding the importance of our operational and technical mission partners as described in the PWS, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to include:

3.1.1.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in the mechanisms and incentives applied to attract and retain the high quality skillsets required to fulfill the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Details regarding incentives used to hire, retain, maintain in a harsh marine environment. Offeror’s proposed hiring and retention strategies will be evaluated to determine the proposed approach will sufficiently meet staffing requirements.

3.1.1.2 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in providing subject matter experts at each remote location.

3.2 Element 1: Recruit, qualify, hire and retain qualified and experienced personnel to operate and maintain the systems in a harsh marine environment; Element 2: Ensure qualified personnel at contract award; Element 3: Demonstrate staffing subject matter expertise in mission operations; Element 5: Demonstrate staffing understanding of the importance of relationships with our Mission Partners (MSC, Planners, Analysts, DLA, Riverside Research Institute, etc.) for Communication manning/O&M:

3.2.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of the importance of our communication mission partners and expertise in providing communication operation and maintenance support aboard all platforms, along with certain equipment located within the MSMO/SMMF, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to include:

3.2.1.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in the mechanisms and incentives applied to attract and retain the high quality skillsets required to fulfill the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Details regarding incentives used to hire, retain, maintain in a harsh marine environment. Offeror’s proposed hiring and retention strategies will be evaluated to determine the proposed approach will sufficiently meet staffing requirements.

3.3 Element 4 (Training/Reach-back with MSMO and Management/Key positions:

3.3.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in accomplishing the requirements of the Service Summary (SS) of the PWS to include.

3.3.1.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in the management structure within the contractor’s management office (MSMO) and its extended management structure at the Mobile Sensors sites and how this supports contract responsibilities 24 hours per day.

3.3.1.2 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in the organizational structure, included charts and a graphical organizational structure, rationale for proposed roles, responsibilities, and relationships for all organizational elements. Adequately addressed mission coverage for all contract periods and provided an acceptable coverage plan for all positions.

3.3.1.3 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in the cross-utilization of personnel. The proposal sufficiently detailed percentage of workforce that will be cross –utilized

3.3.1.4 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in identifying “one-deep” positons on the organizational chart and sufficiently explained the plan for backing up these positions.

3.3.1.5 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in the initial and continued training plan which mitigated, managed or eliminated performance risks and ensure personnel, including alternatives/backups, are qualified for collection of 100% of operational events with no loss of effectiveness.

3.4. Element 6 Minor and Sustaining Engineering Tasks:

3.4.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in prioritizing resources and workload in an effort to support minor and sustaining engineering tasks.

3.4.2 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in accomplishing the required repair, replacement or modification to correct deficiencies of system hardware and software.

3.4.3 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in making recommendations for improvements.

3.4.4 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in accomplishing a rapid turnaround of mission critical discrepancies (system or equipment malfunction, incongruity, divergence, etc. which could cause mission failure).

4. Sub-factor 2: Contractor Configuration Management Plan

4.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in providing configuration management as described in the PWS to include:

4.1.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in performing software and hardware configuration control.

4.1.2 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in tracking all mobile sensor radar and communication systems.

4.1.3 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in implementing feedback and recommendations for improvement of the CMP process.

5. Sub-factor 3: Integrated Logistics Support Plan

5.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise to provide logistical support to highly technical seaborne mobile assets and operate worldwide which also included: (PWS 2.8)

5.1.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise that ensured all people, parts and pieces were in place to meet operational schedules.

5.1.2 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise that addressed remote overseas shipping, storage, and procurement of radar components as well as having the capability to repair systems to meet operational schedules.

5.1.3 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in mitigating the risks associated with the management of personnel and resources required for maintaining and sustaining radar, communications, software, hardware and support equipment and impact on mission operations, to include shipyard.

6. Sub-factor 4: Quality Control Plan

6.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in Quality Control, including lines of authority, and provided a reasonable and effective proposal that will successfully evaluate compliance, find and document problems, and monitor corrective actions, ensuring successful and timely problem resolution while adequately explaining how recurring problems will be prevented.

6.2 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in the system process for recording, computing/assessing performance measurement data, and monitoring corrective actions to ensure successful and timely problem resolution.

6.3 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise of the documents and records that will be developed, maintained, and utilized as part of the Quality Control Plan.

6.4 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in gathering information, evaluating performance based on the requirements of the PWS, and reporting the results to the Government Contracting Officer Representative.

6.5 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in a successfully implemented quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements.

7. Sub-factor 5: Transition/Mobilization

7.1 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in identifying risks and associated mitigations in transition planning.

7.2 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in recruiting, training, certifying, and qualifying personnel during the one-month mobilization period that results in sufficient numbers of fully qualified employees; including graphical time-line that addresses start and completion of each event (e.g., interviewing, hiring, human resource actions, training, and start work dates).

7.3 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and expertise in ensuring that all employees performing services on this contract possess a current clearance level, as required by the position, prior to starting work. The Offeror also provided verification of current industrial clearance.

D. Factor 2: Past Performance Volume III

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform fifteen percent (15%) or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price; or that will perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

3. Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance volume. Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

4. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

5. Key Personnel: For offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company. The quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team. The Past Performance Team will evaluate key personnel with relevant past performance during the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

6. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

Table 4: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

(1) The O&M of high power (several megawatts) phased array and dish radar systems (S and X-Band)

(2) The programming, troubleshooting and maintaining of phased array and dish radar associated C++ code, MATLAB, UNIX, and Windows operating systems.

(3) Troubleshoot the performance of high power (several megawatts) phased array and dish radar systems (S and X- Band): a) troubleshooting and identifying deficiencies; b) formulating plans to correct deficiencies, and c) implementing appropriate corrective actions.

(4) Provide O&M of Communication and instrumentation equipment, also analyzing the performance of this equipment to include the antenna systems and secure cryptographic equipment associated: a) troubleshooting and identifying deficiencies; b) formulating plans to correct deficiencies.

(5) Evaluate form fit and function of existing non-supportable systems and subsystems and determine current or state of the art technology to replace the failed component or function. Ability to integrate new technology to work with existing (older) system components.

(1) The O&M of high power (several megawatts) phased array and dish radar systems in non-remote locations. -or- The O&M of high powered phased array in remote locations but not dish radar.

(2) The O&M of communications systems in remote or non-remote locations.

(3) Full capability of the following:

(a) The programming, troubleshooting and maintaining of phased array and dish radar associated C++ code, MATLAB, UNIX, and Windows operating systems.

(b) Troubleshoot the performance of high power (several megawatts) phased array and dish radar systems (S and X- Band): (i) troubleshooting and identifying deficiencies; (ii) formulating plans to correct deficiencies, and (iii) implementing appropriate corrective actions.

(c) Evaluate form fit and function of existing non-supportable systems and subsystems and determine current or state of the art technology to replace the failed component or function. Ability to integrate new technology to work with existing (older) system components.

(1) The O&M of radar systems that are not directly applicable (non-high power, non phased array or dish) in either remote or non-remote locations.

(2) Limited O&M of communication equipment.

(3) Limited or No capability in two or more of criteria stated below:

(a) The programming, troubleshooting and maintaining of phased array and dish radar associated C++ code, MATLAB, UNIX, and Windows operating systems.

(b) Troubleshoot the performance of high power (several megawatts) phased array and dish radar systems (S and X- Band): (i) troubleshooting and identifying deficiencies; (ii) formulating plans to correct deficiencies, and (iii) implementing appropriate corrective actions.

(c) Evaluate form fit and function of existing non-supportable systems and subsystems and determine current or state of the art technology to replace the failed component or function. Ability to integrate new technology to work with existing (older) system components.

(1) The O&M of neither applicable radar nor communications systems.

(2) Limited or no capability of criteria stated below:

(a) The programming, troubleshooting and maintaining of phased array and dish radar associated C++ code, MATLAB, UNIX, and Windows operating systems.

(b) Troubleshoot the performance of high power (several megawatts) phased array and dish radar systems (S and X- Band): (i) troubleshooting and identifying deficiencies; (ii) formulating plans to correct deficiencies, and (iii) implementing appropriate corrective actions.

(c) Evaluate form fit and function of existing non-supportable systems and subsystems and determine current or state of the art technology to replace the failed component or function. Ability to integrate new technology to work with existing (older) system components.

7. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

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

8. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and critical subcontractor’s are in compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

E. Factor 3: Cost/Price Volume IV

1. Price proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness, balance, and the understanding of the requirement (completeness) based upon the TEP for CLINs 0001-0008, 0010 using one or more of the techniques descripted in FAR 15.404. The Professional Employee Compensation Plan will be evaluated for realism, and is separate from the TEP evaluation. Inconsistencies between the proposed Price Volume and Technical Volume, unbalanced pricing, or other pricing anomalies may be assessed as proposal risk under the Technical Factor. Offerors whose TEP is incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced, or whose Professional Employee Compensation Plan is considered unrealistic may not be considered for award. The price evaluation will document Completeness, Price Reasonableness, Unbalanced Pricing, and Professional Employee Compensation Realism as defined below:

2. Completeness. A proposal is complete when all pricing data required is provided in the format prescribed. Further, all “Green” shaded cells within Attachment 14, Professional Comp Matrix are completed, as applicable, and the TEP is correct. Submission of an incomplete proposal may result in rejection of the proposal.

3. Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

4. Unbalanced Pricing: The government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

5. Professional Employee Compensation Plan. For evaluation purposes only, offerors’ proposals will be evaluated to determine compliance with the provisions at FAR 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993). Failure to demonstrate a realistic Professional Compensation Plan may render a proposal ineligible for award on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or proposed unrealistically low professional employee compensation.

6. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Price analysis will be conducted to verify the overall price offered is fair, reasonable and unbalanced. The TEP will include the sum of all elements of the price/cost proposal for all ten years of the ordering period for CLINs 0001-0008, 0010. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed prices/costs indicate a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements, and reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements. If the price/cost reasonableness/balanced assessment indicated the proposed price/cost is excessively high, the Government may consider the Offeror to have a lack of understanding of the technical requirements. These results may also be used in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations.

F. Factor 4: Small Business Participation Submission Volume (V)

(1) All offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of proposed participation/commitment to use of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein. The Small Business Commitment will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis using the rating table below.

Table 6: Small Business Participation Submission Rating Method

(2) Submittals will be evaluated based upon:

(a) The extent to which firms as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

(b) The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements);

(c) Identification of the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements);

(d) The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements);

(e) The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed quantitative participation;

(f) Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements);

(g) Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (when applicable) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract.

III. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

Attachment 9 – Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

FA7022-21-R-0002