Section_M_CE_Ops_Rev_A_8-20.pdf

ATTACHMENT 5- EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M- EVALUATION FACTORS FOR

AWARD

August 20, 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 Section L of this solicitation) and is evaluated 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 price offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors. 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.

1.2 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 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider 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 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.

1.4 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 proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement and/or displays

Rev A http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

ATTACHMENT 5 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. The Government may review all volumes of the proposals to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach.

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-Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions, 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.

1.6 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. It is, therefore, imperative that the offeror’s initial proposal contain the offeror’s best terms. 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) as incorporated in the FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Government issues a request for FPR, offerors must incorporate their responses to ENs for Factor 1-Technical, Factor 3 -Price, and Factor 4 -Contract Documentation 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 and will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.7 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 of 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.

1.8 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 Section L- Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Section M-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. Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated against the below criteria.

2.1.1 Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Transition Subfactor 2: Program Management Subfactor 3: Resource/Personnel Management Subfactor 4: Mission Essential Services

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 tradeoff between price and past performance. For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2-Past Performance will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3-Price.

2.1.3 Evaluation Methodology

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 3.0 below. Past performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 4.0 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 5.0 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.

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. 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-in approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L - Instruction to Offerors (ITO). This subfactor assesses the offeror’s procedures and methods to transition into full contract performance. To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that their approach will ensure they are operational by contract start date with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance in accordance with PWS 1.6.1.

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 Section L - Instruction to Offerors (ITO). To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

a. A process for program management that ensures all aspects of the CE operations program are met IAW PWS 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.10 and 1.2.11.

b. A process for safety procedures which ensures all safety requirements are met IAW PWS 1.1.7

c. A quality control process that ensures all quality control requirements are met IAW PWS 1.1.6.

3.3 Subfactor 3: Resource/Personnel Management

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed resource/personnel management approach.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L - Instruction to Offerors (ITO). To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

a. A manning process that ensures the offeror will successfully maintain a capable workforce to accomplish the entire scope of effort and successfully handle surges/variables in workload requirements IAW PWS 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, Appendix 4.9 Minimum Team Complement.

b. An organizational approach and management structure which ensures an appropriately qualified, sufficiently staffed workforce to perform all PWS requirements and skill sets.

In addition, the offeror’s approach must ensure successful management of all subcontractor performance.

c. An inventory management approach that ensures all inventory requirements are met IAW PWS 1.4.2, 1.7.6, and 3.1.6.

3.4 Subfactor 4: Mission Essential Services

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed approach to mission essential services.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L - Instruction to Offerors (ITO). To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance IAW PWS 1.2.11.1, Continuation of Essential DoD Contractor Services During Crisis. An approach to ensure that TAFB component missions or responsibilities identified in the aforementioned PWS section are operational, functional, and capable to support TAFB necessities during crisis situations.

4.0. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to meet the PWS requirements, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

4.1 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 (with waiver excluding Substantial Confidence):

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

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 (excluding mission essential services) and price assessment. 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. .

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 offeror must have performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract

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.

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 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 type, magnitude, and schedule. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major/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 of a subcontractor for program management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform program management on the proposed effort.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4 (with deviation excluding very relevant), 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.

Magnitude: Relevancy concerning magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between the scale and extent of a given past performance effort and the operational management requirement on firm-fixed-priced (FFP) contracts.

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.

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy concerning price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost Reimbursable for Contractor Acquired Parts) of previous efforts 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. 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)

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed may contain 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.

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. Performance that is more recent may have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less recent 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. Performance that is more relevant 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 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.

5.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of pricing provided in the Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices and the Pricing Matrix.

The offeror’s pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required IAW Section L, paragraph 5.0 and all subparagraphs.

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

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 Supplies or Services and Prices (Section B) of the model contract should reflect pricing proposed in the price volume (Pricing Matrix & Price Model) used to develop the TEP. Should discrepancies exist in unit prices between the hard copy of Section B and any electronic copy of the price model, the hard copy will be used for the TEP.

5.6.2 For purposes of TEP calculation, the quantities in Section B 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 quantity.

5.6.3 Information provided below details the pricing calculation methodology to be used in evaluation of proposed pricing. For CLIN with COLS, all COLS will be added to determine the TEP. The TEP will be used for award purposes as follows:

For CLIN 0001, Transition-In: The proposed unit price is a lump sum that will be used to determine the estimated total price for the transition period.

For CLINs 1001 through 1045, 1048 through 1051: The proposed unit price will be multiplied by the listed quantity to determine the extended price for that CLIN. All CLINs will be totaled to determine the estimated total annual price for the first option period.

For CLINs 2001 through 2045, 2048 through 2051: The proposed unit price will be multiplied by the listed quantity to determine the extended price for that CLIN. All CLINs will be totaled to determine the estimated total annual price for the second option period.

For CLINs 3001 through 3045, 3048 through 3051: The proposed unit price will be multiplied by the listed quantity to determine the extended price for that CLIN. All CLINs will be totaled to determine the estimated total annual price for the third option period.

For CLINs 4001 through 4045, 4048 through 4051: The proposed unit price will be multiplied by the listed quantity to determine the extended price for that CLIN. All CLINs will be totaled to determine the estimated total annual price for the fourth option period.

For CLINs 5001 through 5045, 5048 through 5051: The proposed unit price will be multiplied by the listed quantity to determine the extended price for that CLIN. All CLINs will be totaled to determine the estimated total price for the fifth option period.

For the six- month extension period: Unit prices from 5001 through 5045, 5048 through 5051 will be utilized to determine the estimated price. The proposed unit prices for CLINs 5001 through 5018, 5023 through 5045, and 5048 through 5050 will be multiplied by six-months to determine the extended price for the six-month extension period. For 5019 through 5021, proposed unit prices will be multiplied by five-months. For 5051, the unit price will be multiplied by 14 days. All these CLIN prices will be totaled to determine the estimated total price for the six-month extension period.

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

5.4.4 Rounding

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 the narrrative of the price volume to verify each offeror’s compliance with Section L, 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 the narrative 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. In addition, 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 the price volume regarding estimating, accounting, and purchasing systems.

5.10.1 Estimating System

Evaluation of offeror’s estimating system will be performed, including past experience as a basis of estimates used for pricing this proposal. DCMA approval status will also be noted and any deviation from offeror’s standard practices regarding estimating utilized in proposed pricing will be reviewed.

5.10.2 Purchasing System

Purchasing systems will be reviewed. DCMA approval will be noted. Any deviation from approved accounting system methodology will also be evaluated.

5.10.3 Accounting System

The status of the offeror’s accounting system will be reviewed by the Government. DCMA approval will be noted. Any deviation from approved accounting system methodology will also be evaluated.

5.10.4 Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques & Methods The Government will review your basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based. These methods should be reflected in and similar to your Disclosure Statement.

5.11 Cost Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the narrative 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 the narrative of the Price Volume to identify the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and DCMA office.

5.13 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.