52.212-2_CE_Engineering_Rev_A_19_Oct_15.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 – EVALUATION

FACTORS FOR AWARD- Rev A October 19, 2015

1.0. SOURCE SELECTION (SS)

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

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 the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its addendum of this solicitation), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value 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 technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.1.1. 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 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.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.3, Contracting by

Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source

Selection Procedures, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) hosted FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one contractor for award. However, the Government reserves the right not to award, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

ATTACHMENT 4 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach.

1.4 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.503. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1-Technical, Factor 2-Past Performance, Factor 3-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.

1.5 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency, or is 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 and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.6 Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions, except clarifications pursuant to FAR 15.306(a), but reserves the right to conduct discussion if the

Contracting Officer later determines them to be 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 FPR will be considered in making the Source Selection decision. If a request for FPR is issued, offeror responses to ENs for Volume I- Technical, Volume III- Price, and Volume IV- Contract Documentation must be incorporated 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. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II- Past Performance shall not be included in the

FPR. Offeror responses to past performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award. In the case that a discrepancy exists between Addendum to 52.212-1- Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Addendum to 52.212-

2-Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Addendum to 52.212-2-Evaluation

Factors for Award will take precedence.

2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposal to ensure it meets the requirements and intent of the PWS. The Government will assess the offeror’s methodology to meet threshold requirements of the PWS as described in the technical subfactors. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

2.1.1 Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Transition

Subfactor 2: Program Management

Subfactor 3: Personnel Management

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential tradeoff between past performance and price. 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-Price.

3.0. 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 offeror. 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, and therefore, unawardable.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall technical rating.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

3.1 Subfactor 1: Transition

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed transition approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Addendum to 52.212-1 - Instructions to Offerors (ITO).

The subfactor minimum (acceptable) is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet transition requirements, with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. The offeror’s approach must ensure transition can be successfully completed within 60 calendar days, and the offeror shall assume responsibility for all functions identified in the PWS on the full performance date with the full staffing capability IAW PWS

Section 1.3.1, Transition-In and demonstrate how their approach will meet the requirement for all of the essential components:

Hiring and obtaining personnel during transition;

Transition strategy/incumbent coordination to minimize mission impact;

Transition/acceptance of on-going workload, completion, and accountability of unfinished construction management of ongoing construction projects;

Transition milestones/tasks, identifying critical path (e.g. human resource actions, training, transfer of Government property, and start work dates);

Process for training incoming personnel; and

Any risk identification and mitigation.

3.2 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 Addendum to 52.212-1 - Instructions to

Offerors (ITO). The subfactor minimum (acceptable) is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components, with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. Program Management: A sound program management approach for tracking, monitoring, managing, and controlling schedule and performance which ensures project designs meet requirements of PWS Section 1.1.3, Project Management. The process must also ensure successful simultaneous execution of project construction management and Work Order execution IAW PWS section 1.1.5, Construction Management, and

PWS section 1.1.6 Work Order by Contract.

b. Safety: A sound process for safety procedures which meets the requirements of PWS

Section 1.5.8, Safety Requirements.

c. Quality Control (QC): A sound process for QC procedures, work acceptance, and rejection, which meets the requirements of PWS Section 1.4 Contractor Quality Control.

3.3 Subfactor 3: Personnel Management

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed personnel management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Addendum to 52.212-1 - Instructions to

Offerors (ITO). The subfactor minimum (acceptable) is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components, with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. Manning: A sound process for recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining qualified/certified personnel. The process must ensure the offeror’s workforce is capable to successfully accomplish the entire scope of the effort, and successfully handle surges/variables in workload requirements IAW PWS paragraph 1.0, Description of

Services.

b. Organizational Structure: A sound organizational approach and management structure

IAW PWS Section 1.1, Engineer Services Management. The offeror’s organizational chart must include an adequate number of qualified personnel for every skill set to ensure all workload requirements identified in the PWS can be successfully accomplished. The organizational chart must also identify key members of the offeror’s management team, including subcontractors, teaming members, and positions which require state Licensed

Professional Engineers and Registered Architects IAW PWS Section 1.1.1, Architectural-

Engineering Consulting, Investigations, and Evaluations.

c. The approach must include a sound process for managing subcontractor performance, if applicable. The approach must ensure that each team member selected by the offeror can successfully accomplish specific PWS requirements they are proposed to perform. The section is only applicable to offerors who utilize team members as part of their proposed approach. Offerors who do not utilize team members will not be evaluated for this section, and will not be penalized.

4.0. 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.

4.1 Ratings

The past performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments (with waiver excluding substantial):

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Satisfactory

Confidence” will be considered equal for the past performance factor.

4.2 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 price

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(Neutral)

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.

assessment. More relevant performance may 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 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; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and

Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the offeror’s past performance.

4.2.1 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 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Furthermore there must be a minimum of three months performance within the recency window. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.2.2 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 price assessment. 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)), as defined in paragraph 3.1 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) 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 Government may also consider past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company, key personnel who have relevant experiences, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of the past efforts to the proposed effort and when the proposal clearly demonstrates the resource (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management, or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect performance of the instant acquisition.

The past performance information contained in Attachment 1 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 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:

Degree Description

RELEVANT

(R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

Scope, magnitude and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: 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. Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and project design and construction inspection for aircraft maintenance facilities, airfield pavements, engine test facilities, large aircraft hangars, fuel storage facilities, utility infrastructure, and large warehouses and administrative spaces. Consideration may be given to the following project designs and construction management (in descending order of relevance) when determining past performance:

1. Airport/Aircraft Facilities

2. Utility/Public Works Projects

3. Large Commercial Buildings

4. Transportation Projects

Magnitude: Relevancy concerning magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the operational management requirement in terms of firm-fixed-priced (FFP) contracts. Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

1. Dollar value of projects designed and construction inspection

2. Quantity and type of projects designed and construction inspection

Complexity: Relevancy concerning complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the requirement in terms of types and size of locations supported. 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.

Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the subfactor criteria. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to complexity:

1. Type of projects designed

2. Projects requiring multiple engineering disciplines

3. Construction management of multiple engineering discipline projects

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to 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 this requirement.

4.2.3 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 when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. 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:

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing

(or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N)

(WHITE)

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

4.2.4 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 based on the definitions provided in paragraph 4.1 above. The rating is not based on a quantitative analysis. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and 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.

5.0. FACTOR 3 – PRICE

Offeror’s pricing proposal will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, realism, and balance. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, unrealistic or unbalanced may be considered ineligible for award. Unreasonable or unrealistic proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement.

5.1 Completeness

For completeness, offerors must provide unit prices for all listed items. Incomplete proposals

(without required unit prices) may render an offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

5.2 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 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.

5.3 Realism

Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price realism. This pertains to CLIN pricing as well as total evaluated price (TEP). Proposed pricing will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure proposed pricing does not pose a risk to performance. Realistic pricing demonstrates an adequate understanding of the requirement with proposed pricing realistic for the work required. To be realistic, proposed pricing shall be consistent with the proposed approach, demonstrating adequate understanding of the requirement and program complexity. All documentation submitted to support price realism shall be considered in making a determination of price realism. Unrealistic prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of adequate understanding of the requirement or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. Offerors are cautioned to not use underbidding as a pricing strategy with the intention of recovering under-bid costs after contract award via requests for equitable adjustments (REAs) or other devices.

5.4 Balance

Offeror’s proposals will be reviewed for balance. An offeror’s proposal will be determined balanced if there is an absence of 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 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:

a) 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

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

5.5 Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

Data other than certified cost or pricing data as required in the Addendum to 52.212-1 will be evaluated to assist in the determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism. 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 and/or realistic pricing.

5.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of pricing provided in the Pricing Matrix

(Attachment in Section J). Estimated quantities in the Pricing Matrix are for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government in any way.

The offeror’s pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the Addendum to 52.212-1 pricing instructions. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required IAW 52.212-1, paragraph 4.0 and all subparagraphs.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for a 60-day transition period, a 22-month base period, four one-year option periods, and a six month extension period

IAW FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”. For TEP calculation, the six-month extension period unit prices will be based on the proposed unit prices of option period four.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the

Government to exercise such options. The six-month extension period is not to be considered part of option year periods—the extension period will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.

5.6.1 Pricing Matrix & Price Model

The Supplies or Services and Prices section of the model contract shall reflect pricing proposed in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment in Section J) and price/cost model in the price volume.

Should discrepancies exist in unit prices between the hard copy of the Pricing Matrix and any electronic copy of the price model, the hard copy will be used for the TEP.

5.6.2 Estimated Quantity

For purposes of TEP calculation, the best estimated quantities in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment in Section J) provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods, such as transition period, the basic period, each option period, and the extension period.

Extended prices per CLIN will be based on proposed unit prices multiplied by the appropriate best estimated quantity (BEQ).

5.6.3 Pricing Methodology

Information provided below details the pricing calculation methodology to be used in evaluation of proposed pricing. The TEP will be used for award purposes as follows:

For CLINs 0001 through 0014 & 0016: The proposed unit price will be multiplied by the estimated quantity to determine the extended price for that CLIN. CLINs 0001 through 0014 &

0016 will be totaled to determine the estimated total annual price for the basic period.

For CLINs 1001 through 1014: The proposed unit price will be multiplied by the estimated quantity to determine the extended price for that CLIN. CLINs 1001 through 1014 will be totaled to determine the estimated total annual price for the first option period.

For CLINs 2001 through 2014: The proposed unit price will be multiplied by the estimated quantity to determine the extended price for that CLIN. CLINs 2001 through 2014 will be totaled to determine the estimated total annual price for the second option period.

For CLINs 3001 through 3014: The proposed unit price will be multiplied by the estimated quantity to determine the extended price for that CLIN. CLINs 3001 through 3014 will be totaled to determine the estimated total annual price for the third option period.

For CLINs 4001 through 4014: The proposed unit price will be multiplied by the estimated quantity to determine the extended price for that CLIN. CLINs 4001 through 4014 unit prices will be utilized to determine the estimated price for the fourth option period and the six- month extension period.

The TEP will be the sum of the estimated total prices of the transition, base, and all four option periods and the estimated price of the six-month extension period.

5.6.4 Rounding

All proposed dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and total evaluated price (TEP). Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

5.7 Subcontractor Pricing

Reasonable pricing determination as it relates to subcontractors will be reviewed. Evaluation of subcontractor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair & reasonable.

5.8 Government Furnished versus Contractor Furnished Assumptions

The Government will review Section 2 of the price volume to verify each offeror’s compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, regarding assumptions based on information provided in the solicitation pertaining to items furnished by the Government versus items expected to be provided by offerors.

5.9 Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision

The Government shall review Section 2 of the price volume for all offeror’s explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. This includes review of the areas of price reduced, such as profit, volume or location discounts, indirect rate reductions and so forth. Also, the offeror’s explanation of how such reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at performance risk will be evaluated by reviewers.

5.10 Estimating Methodology Review

The Government will review information provided in section 1 of the price volume regarding estimating, accounting, and purchasing systems. Deviations from established systems or

Disclosure Statement as provided in the offeror’s explanation in section 1 of the price volume will be reviewed. Explanation of such deviations will also be reviewed. This review will include information provided in section 1 for the estimating system, the purchasing system, the accounting system, and any specific estimating techniques and methods.

5.11 Cost Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing

The Government will review information provided in section 2 of the price volume regarding cost assumptions utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand the offeror’s proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of reasonable and balanced pricing.

5.12 Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will review section 3 of the price volume to check compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 requirement to identify the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and DCMA office.

5.13 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.

5.14 Other Documentation Review

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the price volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified pricing data as believed necessary to support, justify or clarify their proposed pricing.