Evaluation_Factors_For_Award_Addendum.docx

ATTACHMENT 3

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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 Federal Acquisition Regulation (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 04 Mar 2011, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract 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 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.

1.4. 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 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

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. 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.

1.6. 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 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. 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 Addendum 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Addendum 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Addendum 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

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.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Management Subfactor 2: Logistics Subfactor 3: Installation/Repairs Subfactor 4: Installation Scenario 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 trade-off 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).

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 2.2 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

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 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.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum 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 elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

· An approach to perform continuous configuration management in conjunction with all maintenance activity. The approach must ensure the offeror can successfully accomplish configuration management as it relates to PWS paragraph 1.1.1.2.

· An approach for managing cost, schedule and performance for individual task orders for associated work done IAW PWS. The overall approach must ensure the requirements of PWS sections 1.1.2, 1.1.3, and 1.1.4 are met.

· An approach that ensures current and future employees and subcontractors are screened in order to obtain a favorable National Agency Check (NAC) IAW PWS paragraph 1.5.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Logistics

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed logistics approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum 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 elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

· An approach that demonstrates the capability to ensure antenna system and subsystem parts, material, equipment and personnel are successfully transported to and from all HFGCS sites worldwide IAW PWS section 1.15.2 and all subparagraphs.

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Installation/Repairs

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed installation/repairs approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum 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 elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

· An approach which ensures the offeror can successfully assess antenna and antenna subsystems structural, electrical and mechanical condition IAW PWS paragraph 1.1.3.1.

· An approach which ensures the offeror can successfully perform depot-level actions on multiple antennas and subsystems IAW PWS paragraphs 1.1.3.2 and 1.1.3.3.

· An approach which ensures the offeror can successfully install and demolish antennas and antenna subsystems IAW OEM specifications, military standards, and PWS paragraphs 1.1.2.3, 1.1.2.4 and 1.1.2.5.

2.2.4. Subfactor 4: Installation Scenario

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach to the installation scenario. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides convincing rationale how their approach will successfully satisfy the requirements of the scenario for all of the following essential element with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

· An approach which ensures the offeror can successfully complete all scenario requirements. The approach must be consistent with processes proposed in subfactors 1, 2, and 3.

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 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.

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 Price 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, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, 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.

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. 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.

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 proposed technical approach for Factor 1, Technical; Subfactor 1—Management, Subfactor 2--Logistics, Subfactor 3—Installation/Repair and Price assessment. Technical Subfactor 4—Installation Scenario will not be evaluated for Past 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)), as defined in the ITO Addendum, 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 2, 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:

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.

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: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the High Frequency Global Communications System (HFGCS) antenna installation and repair requirements. The HFGCS includes antennas that operate at power levels of 1kW or greater with corresponding physical dimensions (approximately 65 ft.). The HFGCS responsibilities include installation, evaluation and maintenance performed on antenna systems, grounding, bonding, shielding and lightning protection (GBSLP) system and electrical power systems. The responsibilities may be performed at remote locations, which may require extended periods of time on-site.

Magnitude: 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. Quantity of antennas installed/repaired per year

2. Number of locations being supported (i.e. multiple CONUS and OCONUS locations)

3. Contract value as it relates to proposed portion of effort

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 proposed technical subfactors.

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 Antenna Program Support 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 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:

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.

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 based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.3.1 above. The rating is not based on a qualitative 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.

2.4. Factor 3 –Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) price realism, (4) balanced pricing, and (5) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected; if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all offerors, including option prices. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.4.5.3. (TEP Calculation Table) and paragraph 2.4.6 (Estimated Quantities Table) below. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this section. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable Offerors. This TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided below. These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the Basic Period, all Option Periods, and the Six Month Extension Period. The Extension Period is in accordance with Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the unit prices proposed in the Price Matrix (ITO Attachment 3.0).

2.4.1. Price Reasonableness

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

Proposals will be evaluated for completeness. Incomplete proposals will be considered unawardable.

2.4.2. Balanced pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer 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.

2.4.3. Price Realism

Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price realism. This pertains to CLIN pricing as well as 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.

2.4.4. Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

Data other than certified cost or pricing data as required in the ITO Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, will be evaluated to assist in the determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing and price realism. If requested by the CO, additional data other than certified cost or pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing, also reflecting price realism. 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.

2.4.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of pricing provided in the Price Matrix, (ITO Attachment 3.0). The Offeror’s pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 pricing instructions. The TEP Calculation Table below demonstrates the TEP calculation methodology. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.0 and all subparagraphs.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the one-year Base Period, six one-year Option Periods, 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 Incentive Option Period Two.

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. Similarly, quantities used in the Estimated Quantities Table below are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent future purchase quantities or obligate the Government.

2.4.5.1. The Price Matrix of the model contract should reflect pricing proposed in the Price Volume used to develop the TEP.

2.4.5.2. For purposes of TEP calculation, the Estimated Quantities Table provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods, such as the Basic Period, Option Periods, and Extension Period. As stated above, the Extension Period unit prices shall be based on the Option Six Period unit prices. Extended Prices per CLIN will be based on Offeror proposed unit prices multiplied by the government-provided estimated quantities: number of occurrences, estimated dollars or estimated hours.

2.4.5.3. Information provided below demonstrates the general CLIN structure of the requirements and explains details regarding instruction of submitting proposed pricing. To develop the TEP for the contract, CLINs 0001 through 7010 will be proposed for evaluation and subsequent award purposes as follows:

TEP Calculation Table

X001

Program Support

Proposed unit prices will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the overall CLIN extended price.

X002

Program Engineering Support

Proposed unit prices for each labor category will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X003

Installation

Proposed unit prices for each event will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X004

Depot Level Repair

Proposed unit prices for each event will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the overall CLIN extended price.

X010

Over and Above

Proposed unit prices for labor hour rates will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the ELIN. Each ELIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

As indicated above, all extended pricing per CLIN will be added together yielding the TEP.

2.4.6. Estimated Quantities Table

The following table provides estimated quantities to be used in calculating the Total Evaluated Price. NOTE: These estimated quantities are for evaluation purposes only.

Estimated Quantities Table

The following quantities are FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY. The figures are not to be used for computation of workload.

FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY

CLIN

Firm Fixed Price

X001

Fixed Price Rates

As applicable to CLINs X002, X003, X004, X005, and X010

Program Engineering Support, Installation, Depot Level Repair, Demolition and Disposal, Over & Above

Per Occurrence (PO)

X006

Antenna and Antenna Subsystem

Per Occurrence (PO)

X007

Training

Not Separately Priced (NSP)

X008

Data

Per Occurrence (PO)

X009

Travel

NOTE: The Government intends to establish competitively set material handling and profit rates that will apply to material and Other Direct Costs (ODC). The Price Matrix will be updated accordingly.

2.4.7. Rounding - Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. Documentation to support rounding will be provided in Section 1, as well as actual rounding in Section 4, copy of completed Price Matrix (ITO Attachment 3.0). If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP.

2.4.8. Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) – Formerly known as the Service Contract Act - The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to verify each Offeror’s compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 requirement to provide a table conforming the Offeror’s proposed job categories/skill levels to the job categories/skill levels of the Wage Determination. Compliance with the SCLS is the responsibility of the Offeror and subsequent contract awardee.

2.4.9. Subcontractor Pricing - The Government will review Section 2 regarding information pertaining to subcontractor pricing as required in Attachment 2, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.5.10. Reasonable pricing determination as it relates to subcontractors will be reviewed. Evaluation of subcontractor/vendor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair & reasonable.

2.5.10. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision - The Government shall review Section 2 of the Price Volume for all Offerors’ 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 Offerors’ explanation of how such reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at performance risk will be evaluated by reviewers.

2.5.11. Estimating Methodology Review – The Government will review your basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based, including the explanation of specific estimating techniques and methods used. These methods should be reflected in and similar to your Disclosure Statement. The Government will review information provided in Section 2 of the Price Volume regarding the Offeror’s Estimating, Accounting, and Purchasing Systems. This includes information pertaining to the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement and Cost Accounting System (CAS) compliance in preparation of this proposal. Offerors are cautioned to review compliance as it relates to their specific corporate policy. Deviations from established systems or Disclosure Statement or CAS compliance as provided in the Offerors’ explanation in Section 2 of the Price Volume will be reviewed. Explanation of such deviations will also be reviewed.

2.5.12. Purchasing System - As provided in Section 1 of the Price Volume, purchasing systems will be reviewed. DCMA approval will be noted. Any deviation from approved accounting system methodology will also be evaluated.

2.5.13. Accounting System - The status of the offerors’ accounting system will be reviewed by the Government. DCMA approval will be noted. Any deviation from approved accounting system methodology will also be evaluated.

2.5.14. 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. Any deviations shall be noted and explained.

2.5.15. 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 Offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of reasonable and balanced pricing.

2.5.16. Government Field Support Agencies - The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to check compliance with Attachment 2, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 5.6, requirement to identify the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and DCMA office.

2.5.17. 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 cost or pricing data as believed necessary to support, justify or clarify their proposed pricing. All information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of reasonable, balanced, and realistic pricing.

2.5.18. CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM - Similarly, the Government will also review Section 2 of the Price Volume information to verify each offeror’s compliance with Attachment 2, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, pertaining to the offeror’s understanding of requirements for Contractor Furnished Materials, including property, equipment, and tooling.