Attachment_09_-_52.212-2.pdf

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Items FA7037-19-R-A001 Attachment 09

(a) SOURCE SELECTION

(1) Basis for Contract Award. This is a competitive best value subjective tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. See the complete methodology as described at Addendum to 52.212-1 (h). The Government will select the best overall proposal, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors-Commercial Items, of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. 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 (including overall business approach) and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(2) Conformance Review. All offers will be examined for responsiveness utilizing RFP Attachment 05

– Conformance Review Checklist. Those offers which fail to meet the material requirement of the RFP will be deemed unacceptable and may be removed from further consideration.

(3) Evaluation Process

(i) The remaining offers which have been found to be responsive and met the conformance review checklist will be listed from the lowest Total Price (TP) to the highest TP as found on each offeror’s submitted RFP Attachment 04 – Total Evaluated Price Worksheet (The Government will compile a the list of TPs from all offers not excluded in (a)(2) from lowest price to highest price so that efficient competition can be conducted.) If there are eight (8) or fewer proposals, all proposals will be evaluated for technical, past performance and price. If there are more than eight proposals, the Government will evaluate offers starting with the offer representing the lowest TP from the compiled list. The Government will continue evaluating each low offer until eight (8) offers meet the technical and past performance standards utilizing the methods found in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 (3)(ii) and (4)(ii) of this solicitation. Those offerors included will be a part of the government’s consideration pool.

(ii) If in the Government’s best interest, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to include more than eight (8) offers for evaluation if the TP of offeror’s proposals not in the lowest initial eight (8) TP offerors are within 1% of the 8th lowest price..

(iii) Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ conduct discussions if necessary. If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

(A) If the Government determines that discussions are necessary, the Government will make a competitive range determination of the most highly-rated proposals in order to establish a list of offerors with which it will conduct discussions. 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 FPR.

The contracting officer will establish a common cut-off date only for receipt of FPRs. Requests for FPRs shall advise offerors that the final proposal revisions shall be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.

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

(iv) If discussions are not required, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will make a recommendation to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) based on FAR 15.101-2 Tradeoff process.

In this solicitation, Technical / Technical Risk plus Past Performance is of greater importance than Price and Technical is more important than Past Performance. As stated in part in FAR 15.101-2(c), “this process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal…”

(vi) The SSA’s decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA’s independent judgment. The source selection decision shall be documented, and the documentation shall include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA, including benefits associated with additional costs. The rationale for the selection decision will be documented. This decision is subjective in nature as part of a subjective evaluation process.

(4) Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

(i) The Government intends to award one (1) Information Security Support Services (ISSS) IDIQ contract from FA7037-19-R-A001 and one initial ISSS Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Task Order concurrently. The Government also anticipates awarding subsequent TOs in support of ISSS following award of ISSS IDIQ and initial ISSS Task Order, however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

(ii) 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 in FAR 15.506.

(b) EVALUATION FACTORS

(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 Addendum to FAR 52.212-2. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the most advantageous proposal to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government will conduct a total overall evaluate price analysis to determine whether proposed prices are fair and reasonable/realistic and balanced. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate the ISSS IDIQ:

Factor 1: Technical / Technical Risk

Subfactor 1: Staffing and Skillset Management Plan (SSMP) Subfactor 2: Cybersecurity Process Improvement (CPI) Subfactor 3: Technical Expertise and Capability Subfactor 4: Experience Subfactor 5: Scenario Response

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

(2) Importance. Technical/Technical Risk is greater than Past Performance in importance. Within the Technical/Technical Risk Factor, the subfactors are considered of equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

(3) Factor 1: Technical Factors

(i) Elements. The Technical evaluation combines the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating into a single rating as found in Table 3A. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical Subfactor.

(ii) Technical Rating. An adjectival rating will be assigned to each Subfactor in accordance with (IAW) DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.2, Table 3A (shown below) to reflect the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical Subfactor requirements. The Technical Evaluation Board will determine a adjectival rating IAW Table 3A – Technical Rating Method for each subfactor. In order to be considered for award, the rating for all technical subfactors must be “Acceptable”, “Good”, or “Outstanding”.

Should any of the subfactors have a rating of “marginal” or “unacceptable” as described in the description section of Table 3A, the offer will be removed from further consideration and will not receive award.

Table 3A – Technical Rating Method

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

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

Red 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.

(A) Risk of Unsuccessful Performance. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), 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. Descriptors as found in Table 3B will be utilized to assess the combined Technical Rating within Table 3A.

(B) Table – Descriptions of Risk

Table 3B – Desciptions of Risk IAW Table 3A Adjectival Descriptive Description Unsuccessful performance is Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unsuccessful performance is Low to moderate.

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

Unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate

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

Unsuccessful performance is performance is high

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unsuccessful performance is unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

(iii) Subfactor 1 – Staffing and Skillset Management Plan (SSMP) Development Approach.

The government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Staffing and Skillset Management Plan (SSMP). Offerors are encouraged to utilize Performance Work Statement (PWS) Appendix C - Support Services Data: Forecasted Level of Effort, as a point of reference for delivery of service and personnel required. The offeror’s plan will be evaluated on:

(A) Ability to attract and retain high quality staff. The offeror’s description of the mechanisms and incentives applied to attract and retain high demand low-density skillsets required to fulfill the requirements of the PWS. Details presented in the offeror’s methodology of how a fully qualified and fully staffed workforce will be in place at the start of each task order (TO). Details regarding incentives used to hire, retain, maintain, and develop TS/SCI cleared personnel will be evaluated. The offeror’s approach to defining and mapping each labor category to the skillset, experience, and certifications needed to fulfill the PWS. The description of how the Staffing and Skillset Management Plan was developed.

(B) Loss Rate. The offeror’s numeric representation of the acceptable loss rate/quarter. A lower rate of acceptable losses/quarter are considered one indication by the Government that the offeror has the ability to recruit and retain high quality staff over the term of the contract. Retention of quality contract employees is of significant benefit to the Government.

(C) Vacancy fill strategy. The offeror’s description of the mechanisms applied to fill vacancies in a timely manner with zero/minimum mission impact. The offeror’s estimated average time to fill a vacant position. The ability to fill vacancy(ies) quickly is of significant benefit to the Government.

(D) Adapting to changing mission. The offeror’s presentation of a strategy to quickly adapt to changing mission requirements, priorities, and workloads with no negative impact upon ongoing workload. Approach to customer service: listening to the customer, understanding customer requirements, and fostering a cohesive and productive team environment.

(E) Ensuring high quality work performance. Approach to ensuring effective and high quality performance from personnel. Description of how appropriated metrics will be utilized to measure and track performance and workload.

(iv) Subfactor 2 – Cybersecurity Process Improvement (CPI) Approach. The government will evaluate the offeror’s Cybersecurity Process Improvement (CPI) Plan details regarding the methodology and approach to meeting each of the following:

(A) Support requirements. A description of the approach to meeting the CPI support requirements as described in the PWS.

(B) Improvement to RMF authorization timeline. Description of the approach to optimizing/streamlining the RMF authorization timeline without degradation to mission assurance.

(C) Understanding the customers’ cybersecurity mission and goals. The offeror demonstrates an understanding of the ACC/A2 cybersecurity mission and goals as described in the PWS.

(v) Subfactor 3 – Technical Expertise and Capability Approach. The government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to performing the tasks presented in the PWS. Identifying and presenting opportunities in which innovation, technology integration, and continuous process improvement can be implemented. The offeror’s understanding of how the PWS tasks impact the AF, DoD, and

IC.

(vi) Subfactor 4 – Experience. The government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to presenting relevant work experience applicable to PWS requirements.

(A) Prime Contractor’s Experience. Absence of relevant work experience by the Prime contract will result in an “Unacceptable” rating for this Subfactor.

(B) Relevant work experience. The offeror will be evaluated on relevant work experience applicable to the PWS requirements. The offeror’s submission of details regarding how the experience is related to the PWS and what steps were taken to ensure successful contract performance. The offeror‘s description of measures taken to ensure qualified personnel were employed and steps taken to mitigate the effects of personnel shortfalls. Details presented by the offeror regarding working relationship with customer in terms of effective communication and understanding the customers’ requirements.

(C) Process improvement initiatives. The offeror will be evaluated on process improvement initiatives presented to the customer of the contract and the resulting outcomes.

(vii) Subfactor 5 – Scenario Response. The government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to Brighttown AFB, Texas scenario.

(A) Approach. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the approach to meeting the requirements of the scenario. Factors such as innovation, quality, efficiency, and management of work will be considered.

(B) Staffing Plan. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine, given the facts found within the scenario, whether the offeror’s proposal identifies a realistic mix of both job categories and total number of contract employees (FTEs). Realistic mix is defined by what a knowledgeable individual in the field of ISSS/Risk would consider prudent to complete the identified tasks.

Responses which are too low or too high in the number of proposed individuals for the methodology proposed, represent a significant risk to the Government for completion.

(C) Assumptions. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in light of assumptions made by the offeror. The Government understands that normal dialogue which might normally happen during the task order process is not available to the offeror as part of this solicitation. Therefore, the offeror should list assumptions made in order to substantiate the approach. Assumptions will be evaluated to understand the level of understanding of both industry practices and specific Air Force IC requirements.

(4) Factor 2: Past Performance

(i) Overview. The Past Performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Government shall consider the entire ISSS IDIQ PWS tasks when considering each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance. Therefore, the offeror shall consider the entire ISSS IDIQ PWS tasks when submitting past performance services that meet the contract’s requirements.

(ii) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below. In order to be considered for award, the rating for all past performance subfactors must be “Neutral Confidence”, “Satisfactory Confidence”, or “Substantial Confidence”. Should any of the subfactors have a rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” as described in the description section of Table 5, the offer will be removed from further consideration and will not receive award.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

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

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

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

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

(iii) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance, in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered) taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Addendum to FAR.

(iv) Source of Information. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s past performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

(v) Recency. An evaluation of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Submit no more than five contracts for prime contractor and no more than five contracts for each significant subcontractor or teaming partner. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further.

(vi) Relevance. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance. For each recent past performance contract reviewed, the relevance of the work performed, to include scope and magnitude, will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Each proposal’s relevancy rating will be based on the offeror’s past performance as well as any teaming partner, or subcontractor’s past performance whos contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information sheets (PPIS) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, and Table 4):

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(vii) Quality of Services. The Government will review all past performance information collected, determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

(viii) Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality services assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see Table 5 above). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of offeror’s performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

(ix) Impact. More recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

(5) Factor 3: Price

(i) Evaluation Elements. Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness), (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Overall Evaluated Price.

Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic may not be considered for award. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected, if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon Attachments 03, 04, 10 and Exhibit 02 utilizing the methodology described below. The Government shall only evaluate those proposals which are within the consideration pool.

(ii) Total Overall Evaluate Price (TOEP). The TOEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed within RFP Attachment 04 – Total Evaluated Price Worksheet, cell H11. The TOEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions.

Price will be evaluated for Completeness, Reasonableness, Unrealistic Low Prices, Unbalanced Pricing, and Professional Compensation Plan realism. Price analysis will be conducted for each Offeror’s proposal within the consideration pool. The analytical pricing techniques and procedures described herein may be used, singly or in combination with others, to ensure that the selected best value offers are complete, reasonable, don’t contain unrealistically low prices, are balanced, and the Professional Compensation Plan(s) are realistic.

(iii) Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. For evaluation purposes only, Offerors proposals within the Consideration Pool 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 compensation.

(iv) Fully Burdened Rates by Region. Rates provided will be evaluated for balanced pricing (i.e.

rates for job categories across regions reflect regional differences (if any)), price realism, and price reasonableness.

(v) Price Reasonableness. The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

(vi) Unbalanced Pricing. Offeror’s proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer (CO) if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that: There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or the offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

(vii) Price Realism. Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, and must ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

There is a reasonable expectation of competition for this requirement; thus Offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal. The Offeror’s price proposal shall represent the Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where an Offeror’s proposed prices appear unrealistically low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal

(viii) Data Other than Certified Pricing Data. If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

(End of Addendum to 52.212-2)