FA8100R120003_TAASC II SectionM_DRAFTEVALFACTORS.docx

ATTACHMENT 5 – FA8100-12-R-0003; EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ATTACHMENT 5 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

DRAFT EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Source Selection (SS)

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

1.1.1 This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between past performance and price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to approximately 4-5 Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, and certifications) and are judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

1.1.2 The Government seeks to award to approximately four (4) to five (5) Offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet 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 technically acceptable, superior past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference.

1.1.3 While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) 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. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to be necessary.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select approximately four (4) to five (5) contractors for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award any contracts at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable”. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable or if the amount of corrections needed to meet the Government requirement is impractical, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4. Rejection of Unreasonable Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.5 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Cost/Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

2. Evaluation Factors

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1 Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability Subfactor 1: Resource Management Subfactor 2: Program Management Subfactor 3: Sample Task Implementation Proposal Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between cost/price and past performance. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Cost/Price). Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the award decision.

2.1.3 Evaluation Methodology:

Initially, offers shall be ranked according to price. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the hours identified in the Labor Category Rate Matrix by the proposed labor rate for each labor category to confirm the extended amount for each. Next, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the 10 to 12 lowest priced offerors on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Note that the “10 to 12 lowest priced offerors” shall be comprised only those offerors whose Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is considered reasonable, balanced, complete, and in accordance with the Service Contract Act (SCA). The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Cost/Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. The SSA will then assess the price and past performance ratings for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. If the 4-5 lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offers are judged to have “Satisfactory Confidence” performance confidence assessments, those offers represent the best value for the government and the evaluation process will at this point cease. Award shall be made to those offerors without further consideration of any other offers.

2.2 Factor 1 – Technical

Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each proposal. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating.

2.2.1 Subfactor 1: Resource Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed resource management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. An acceptable response must demonstrate a sound organizational approach, management structure, and effective processes for internal team communication, monitoring team performance, resolving team conflict, and accomplishing tasks in a timely manner. The response must demonstrate how the offeror’s team is organized to facilitate coordinating activities among team members, including, if applicable, subcontractor, mentor/protégé, and joint venture partners.

b. An acceptable organizational approach demonstrates clear lines of communication with delegated authority, which allows for timely accomplishment of tasks and submission of deliverables, and prompt resolution of task issues and discrepancies.

c. An acceptable response must demonstrate a sound understanding of maintaining a highly qualified workforce across a broad spectrum of A&AS support areas and the processes utilized by management to address how challenges will be successfully mitigated.

d. An acceptable response must demonstrate the offeror's ability to successfully retain the required knowledge base throughout the life of the contract.

e. An acceptable response must demonstrate the ability to train a highly capable workforce and include a plan for recurring and on-going training.

f. An acceptable response must demonstrate a working knowledge of the security clearance process and provide an efficient and effective method for ensuring properly cleared personnel are available promptly to provide the required mix of skills and clearance levels necessary to accomplish the TAASC mission. This includes any concerns and mitigation techniques for obtaining security clearances for personnel, the number of current employees who hold security clearances, and the level of each security clearance.

g. An acceptable response must demonstrate an understanding of OC-ALC A&AS support requirements and demonstrate a flexible process to allocate workforce resources across the broad spectrum of TAASC requirements. The response must also demonstrate and define a sound approach to ensure timely availability of appropriate personnel to meet accelerated delivery schedules or surge requirements.

h. An acceptable response must demonstrate sound rationale for selecting and managing subcontractors, including mentor/protégé and joint venture partners if applicable, and distributing workload. An acceptable response must also provide a comprehensive process for managing subcontractor performance, schedule and cost.

i. An acceptable response must include an organizational chart detailing the proposed management structure, to include names and locations of prime and subcontractors, core team members, and, if applicable, mentor/protégé and joint venture partners.

2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Program Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed program management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. An acceptable response must identify and demonstrate an effective and efficient process for managing business operations, including safety, security, quality management, cost efficiencies. The response must identify processes used to track, monitor, manage, control, and audit task order performance. An acceptable approach will demonstrate how the Government will be kept informed.

b. An acceptable response must demonstrate reasonable approaches to identify and mitigate risks associated with the timely accomplishment of task orders.

c. An acceptable response must demonstrate effective processes to manage cost, schedule and performance of task orders. An acceptable response must also demonstrate innovative management approaches to identify areas where efficiencies can be identified and programs can be implemented to reduce costs and improve performance.

d. An acceptable response must identify and describe all risks associated with the transition of existing TAASC A&AS support requirements to TAASC II and provide acceptable risk mitigation activities that will minimize cost and schedule impacts. An acceptable response will also include a plan to minimize disruption during the transition period while maintaining schedule and cost.

e. An acceptable response must identify and demonstrate an effective oversight process, with a defined approach of how quality business services and reporting products will be continually provided on tasks. An acceptable response must address how the offeror will ensure quality services are always provided.

f. An acceptable response must identify any processes or automated data systems/software used for performance, schedule, and cost management.

2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Sample Task Implementation Proposal

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed sample task implementation proposal approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Section L, Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

a. An acceptable response must identify how the Contractor plans to accomplish the effort. This shall include the performing team members and a transition plan. An acceptable transition plan shall, at a minimum address availability of proposed personnel as well as security clearance timeline for obtaining required clearances.

b. An acceptable response must include a pricing/cost volume including the mix of labor categories, hours, and rates at or below those contained in the Labor Category Rate Matrix. An acceptable response will further break out the number of individuals proposed per labor category, skill level, totals per contract period, and a total contract summary.

c. An acceptable response shall include a sanitized Contractor Personnel Capability Statements (CPCS) reflecting availability, qualifications, experience (including employment history dates for each employer and the total period for each employer), and training of personnel to perform and how the individual meets the requirements of the TAASC Labor Category descriptions and the sample task PWS. An acceptable response shall include a CPCS for all personnel proposed for the sample task and shall limit the number of CPCSs to two per position.

d. An acceptable response shall include relevant Past Performance information, including a contract number, the total contract dollar amount, the period of performance, and the contract customer name and location.

2.3 Factor 2 – Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.1 Ratings:

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments:

TABLE 6- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Note: All offerors rated as Satisfactory Confidence will be considered equal for Factor 2 Past Performance.

2.3.2 Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. 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 Cost/Price assessment. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on 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, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources.

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment:

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price assessment. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information forms contained in Attachment 1.1 of Section L, Instructions to Offerors and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

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

RELEVANT

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Consideration may be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. The Government will use the following categories based on the prime’s or team member’s proposed role or effort as it relates to their past performance:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the TAASC requirement. TAASC is personnel administration responsible for employment, training, guidance, and supervision of qualified personnel to accomplish a task order against the contract. Contractors shall accomplish the assigned work by employing and utilizing qualified personnel with various combinations of education, training, and experience while matching personnel skills to the work and task ensuring personnel are actively engaged to the fullest extent possible. Included in personnel administration are possible security requirements, maintaining business relations for subcontracted work, timely schedule management, cost controls, and reports.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the TAASC requirement in terms of number of personnel managed, personnel skill type/level, location/area supported, and contract type/value. Generally efforts of less than $150,000 will not be considered relevant unless such efforts, when combined, comprise a significant amount of work. (Example: multiple task orders under $150,000 on a large Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.)

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the TAASC requirement in terms of types/number of functional categories, labor categories, length of work, travel requirements, on/off site work, and multiple task orders occurring simultaneously.

Note: Scope, Magnitude and Complexity will be assessed based on the prime or team members proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort.

Cost/Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the TAASC II requirement.

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

(BLUE)

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Governments benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG)

(PURPLE)

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Governments benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear, or were, satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractors proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear, or were, ineffective.

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown 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.

2.4 Factor 3 – Cost or Price

The Government shall validate the TEP of all offerors. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.4.5 below.

2.4.1 Unreasonably low prices or estimates may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based upon an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement.

2.4.2 Unbalanced pricing:

Offeror’s proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced. 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:

2.4.2.1There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

2.4.2.2 The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.4.3 Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of cost/price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 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 cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

2.4.4 Other than Cost or Pricing Data:

FAR 12.209 gives the requirement to establish price reasonableness in accordance with 13.106-3 (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), 14.408-2 (Sealed Bidding), or 15.4 (Contract Pricing by Negotiation), as applicable. FAR part 15 applies. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. FAR 15.403-3(a)(1) provides for obtaining other than cost or pricing data if needed to determine price reasonableness. FAR 15.404-1(d)(3) provides for obtaining other than cost/pricing data on FFP competitive contracts when requirements may not be fully understood by competing Offerors. Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining other than cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain data as appropriate. Should the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) determine proposed prices to appear unreasonable or the possibility that an Offeror does not fully understand the requirement, the Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via other than cost or pricing data. Should this occur, this opportunity will be provided via an Evaluation Notice (EN).

2.4.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for the five year basic period. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

2.4.5.1 Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs (Section B) of the cost/price volume will be used to develop the TEP. Should discrepancies exist in unit prices between the hard copy and electronic copy of the price model, the hard copy will be used for the TEP.

2.4.5.2 For purposes of TEP calculation, the “Instructions” tab in the attached spreadsheet labeled “Labor Category Rate Matrix” provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices. Extended pricing per CLIN will be based on labor category rates multiplied by the government provided best estimated number of hours.

2.4.5.3 Information provided below details the pricing methodology to be used in evaluation of proposed pricing. To develop the TEP for the contract, CLINs 0001 through 0006 will be evaluated for award purposes as follows:

2.4.5.3.1 CLIN 0001 through CLIN 0006

The rates proposed on each CLIN of the Labor Category Rate Matrix for the 5-year ordering period will be multiplied by the government provided estimated number of hours and summed to provide the total estimated CLIN price.

The six (6) total estimated CLIN prices, resulting from the calculation method described above, will be summed to provide the TEP at the contract level.

Total Estimated CLIN Price = Basic Year I + Basic Year II + Basic Year III + Basic Year IV + Basic Year V

TEP = Sum of Total Estimated CLIN Prices (CLINs 0001 through 0006)

2.4.5.3.2 CLIN 0007 through CLIN 0012

The rates proposed on CLINs 0007 through 0012 are for Time and Material efforts and will not be included in the TEP. Offerors must list Time & Material rates in the Labor Category Rate Matrix, even if they are the same as the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) rates. The T&M rates will be evaluated for reasonableness. Offerors must provide all information regarding T&M rates as stated in the Section L, Instructions to Offerors.

2.4.5.3.3 CLIN 0013 – Data

The data CLIN is Not Separately Priced (NSP) and therefore not part of the TEP calculation.

2.4.5.3.4 CLIN 0014 – Travel

The travel CLIN is Cost Reimbursable (CR) without Fee and is to be used to propose travel associated with requirements at the task order level. Travel costs will be proposed IAW FAR 31.205-46 and are not part of the TEP.

2.4.5.3.4.1 G&A rate for Travel (CR)

Offerors shall provide a ceiling G&A rate per year for Travel (CR) on the Labor Category Rate Matrix. This rate will be evaluated for reasonableness and is not part of the TEP.

3.0 Tradeoff

If a trade-off is used, it will only be made between Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable.

3.1 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if, during the evaluation period, 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 SS decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, offeror responses to ENs Notices must be included in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award.

3.2 Pre-award Survey

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this Source Selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.3 Reviews and Visits

The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal.

3. 4. Solicitation Requirements – Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and mission requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with all 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. In the case that a discrepancy exists between the ITO (Section L) and the Evaluation Factors for Award (Section M), the evaluation criteria in Section M will take precedence.