HAPSSectionM25Feb08.pdf

Evaluation Factors for Award Source Selection Information

For Official Use Only

Attachment 5 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-2

PART I V - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

DEFINITIONS

To ensure the Government is implicitly clear about the differences between a Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW) and the Performance Work Statement (PWS) the Government provides the following definitions for your information and proposal submission:

CONTRACTOR STATEMENT OF WORK (CSOW)

As the Performance Work Statement (PWS) will not be incorporated into the basic contract, the CSOW shall be used to address all of the requirements of the PWS and its attachments. The CSOW will be incorporated into the basic contract and will replace the PWS, which is why it is mandatory that all PWS requirements are detailed in the CSOW. Each offeror should furnish its proposed CSOW based on its own commercial practices which will subsequently be reviewed and evaluated by the Government as a part of this source selection. The CSOW should not simply rephrase or restate the Governments’ requirements, but shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. The offeror should ensure all requirements of the PWS are fully addressed. The organization of information presented in the CSOW should consistently track to the information in the PWS so that all requirements of the PWS are easily identified in the CSOW. The offeror should also identify any best practices or innovations proposed in the CSOW in order to receive consideration.

The CSOW will be evaluated to ensure it addresses all requirements of the PWS and its attachments. Remember, the offeror should also identify any best practices or innovations proposed in the CSOW in order to receive consideration.

MISSION CAPABILITY & PROPOSAL RISK VOLUME

The Mission Capability & Proposal Risk Volumes will not be incorporated into the basic contract. This volume shall address your proposed approach to meeting the requirements of each Mission Capability subfactor, as well as the risks in your proposed approach in terms of mission capability/performance, cost, and/or schedule. This document should provide the offeror’s plan of execution and the actual methodology you will use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. This volume should not simply rephrase or restate the Governments’ requirements, but shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. The organization of information presented in the Mission Capability & Proposal Risk Volume should consistently track to the subfactor elements so that all requirements are easily identified in the volume. The offeror should also identify any best practices or innovations proposed.

(If any plans (i.e. management plan, deployment plan, etc) are to be incorporated into a resultant contract, they should be identified and discussed above.)

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This is a Full Trade-Off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and the Air Force Materiel Command Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFMCFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Proposal Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR clause 52.212-1 and its addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements.

This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the mission superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award a single contract for the High Frequency Global Communications System (HFGCS) Antenna Program. The contract will be awarded under a 100% Small Business set-aside.

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

d. Correction Potential of Proposals The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal is considered not correctable or not among the most highly rated offers, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

e. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP).

f. Discussions The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and mission capability standpoint.

2.1 EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Mission Capability

Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Resource Management Subfactor 3: Maintenance Subfactor 4: Installation/De-Installation

Factor 2: Proposal Risk Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Cost/Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Factors 1-3 , when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4, Cost/Price. However Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The Subfactors within the Mission Capability Factor are considered of equal importance. Offerors are cautioned that an award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced offer. In arriving at a source selection decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration for performance in excess of threshold requirements.

2.1 Factor 1: Mission Capability

The Mission Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy or exceed the Government’s requirements. Favorable assessments will consider the benefit, impact, and feasibility of additional commitments by the offeror to provide higher output, capability, and quality, or exceed performance thresholds identified in the PWS.

Each Mission Capability subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.1, Table 1 – Mission Capability Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Mission Capability subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Mission Capability factor.

TABLE–1 – MISSION CAPABILITY RATINGS

Color Rating Description Blue Exceptional Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government; proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue.

Green Acceptable Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the request for proposal; proposal rated green must have no deficiencies but may have one or more strengths.

Yellow Marginal Does not clearly meet some specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the request for proposal, but any such uncertainty is correctable.

Red Unacceptable Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements;

proposal has one or more deficiencies. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Program Management

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed Program Management plan and approach. The Government may give positive consideration for best practices and innovative approaches which exceed minimum requirements for this subfactor in a way which provides a benefit to the government. The CSOW must include these best practices and innovations to receive consideration. The subfactor threshold (minimum) is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates all of the following components:

a) Comprehensive understanding of Antenna Structural Maintenance and the capability to effectively manage all aspects of an antenna structural maintenance plan to achieve optimum antenna availability and longevity.

b) Capability to effectively ensure accurate and reliable accounting information is available in real time via web-based automated funds accounting system. The system must allow Government access on a read-only basis for the same information available to the contractor.

c) Capability to effectively perform continuous configuration management in conjunction with all maintenance activity IAW

PWS paragraphs 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.6 and1.1.7. The process shall include maintaining, tracking and reporting configurations for each antenna and associated subsystems.

d) Ability to effectively manage subcontractor’s performance, schedule and cost.

e) Capability to effectively perform engineering services IAW PWS paragraph 1.1.2. The plan shall address repairs, drawings, and recommendations for maintenance intervals and corrosion control.

f) Effective approach to safety, environmental management and quality IAW PWS paragraphs 1.8, 1.9, 1.11, 1.11.1 and

1.11.2.

g) Capability to effectively manage, maintain, acquire and staff for maintenance of high frequency (HF) antennas and antenna subsystems IAW PWS paragraphs and sub paragraphs 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1 4, 1.1.4.1, 1.1.5, 1.1.5.1, 1.1.6 and 1.1.7.

2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Resource Management

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed Resource Management plan and approach. The Government may give positive consideration for best practices and innovative approaches which exceed minimum requirements for this subfactor in a way which provides a benefit to the government. The CSOW must include these best practices and innovations to receive consideration. The subfactor threshold (minimum) is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates all of the following

a) Ability to effectively recruit, hire, train and retain a qualified and capable workforce that can accomplish the entire scope of the effort outlined in the PWS. The process must ensure 85% of the workforce supporting the HFGCS antenna program maintenance and managerial functions has a minimum of 5 years antenna and antenna subsystem experience. The process shall also demonstrate thorough understanding of Technical Expert Status Agreement (TESA) requirements.

b) Ability to effectively and thoroughly support scheduled, unscheduled and short notice visits with Contract Field Teams

IAW PWS 1.1.3, 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3.

c) A sound plan for inventory controls and accountability of Government Furnished Property which ensures these inventories will be accounted for tracked and updated IAW PWS paragraphs 3 and 3.1.

2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Maintenance

The Government will assess the offeror’s Maintenance plan and approach. The Government may give positive consideration for best practices and innovative approaches which exceed minimum requirements for this subfactor in a way which provides a benefit to the Government. The CSOW must include these best practices and innovations to receive consideration. The subfactor threshold (minimum) is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates all of the following components:

a) Capability to effectively assess antenna and antenna subsystems structural, electrical and mechanical condition.

b) Capability to effectively meet antenna reliability and availability for each antenna type, model and series IAW PWS Section J of the Solicitation.

c) Ability to effectively ensure records are completely and thoroughly updated IAW PWS 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, and 1.1.7.

d) Ability to effectively implement MIL-STD 188-124B.

e) An effective maintenance approach for the sample scenario defined in Section L, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph 4.2.5.

2.1.4 Subfactor 4: Installation/De-Installation

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed Installation/De-Installation approach. The Government may give positive consideration for best practices and innovative approaches which exceed minimum requirements for this subfactor in a way which provides a benefit to the Government. The CSOW must include these best practices and innovations to receive consideration. The subfactor threshold (minimum) is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates all of the following

a) Ability to plan and implement installation/de-installation of multiple antenna types and quantities at locations noted in Section J of the Solicitation of the PWS.

b) Capability to install/de-install antennas and antenna subsystems IAW OEM specifications and MIL-STD 188-124B.

c) Correct deficiencies in GBSLP systems IAW MIL-STD 188-124B.

2.2 Factor 2: Proposal Risk

Proposal Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses associated with an Offeror’s proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Proposal Risk ratings described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2, Table 2 – Proposal Risk Ratings are excerpted below. For any weakness identified, the evaluation team shall address the Offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is manageable. The Offeror shall identify any/all risks associated with implementation of their Mission Capability requirements and the mitigation of those risks.

Identify if the offeror, including subcontractors, core team members and, if applicable mentor/protégé and joint venture partners, have successfully used the proposed Mission Capability approaches. If not successfully used, describe how you intend to mitigate risks associated with implementation of those Mission Capability requirements.

TABLE 2 – PROPOSAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description High Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

2.3 Factor 3: Past Performance Factor

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 The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in AFFARS

MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.3.2, Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

LITTLE OR NO CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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 Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance. 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.

(i) Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be at least six (6) months old and must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition may not be evaluated. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. For example, if a contract completed two years ago, the Government may also consider the Phase-In portion of that contract that occurred five (5) years ago. Past performance information that fails this condition may not be evaluated.

(ii) 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 Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information forms contained in Attachment 2 of FAR 52.212-1 Addendum 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 when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Degree Description

HIGHLY RELEVANT (HR) Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT (R) Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR) Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT (NR) Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) 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 also include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

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

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

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

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

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor, 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 recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

2.4 Factor 4: Cost or Price Factor

(a) The evaluation of information other than cost or pricing data requested in Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 6.1.1 will be reviewed to determine price reasonableness (including completeness), cost realism and balance. Pricing shall be in compliance with the solicitation’s Instructions to Offerors and price evaluation will be in accordance with the following evaluation methodology.

(b) The Total Evaluated Price to the government will be calculated for each Offeror and presented to the SSA for consideration in the integrated assessment for the source selection decision. The Offeror’s pricing proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) proposed for all years of the contract. This includes Basic Period and Option Years 1 through Option Year 6. Evaluations of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options. The TEP will be calculated based on the sum of total dollars per period (i.e., fiscal year). Total dollars per period are based on unit prices per CLIN each ear and multiplied by the government’s estimated number of occurrences for each fiscal year. These extended prices per CLIN will be summed to total evaluated prices per year. All extended prices per year will be summed resulting in the TEP.

(c) Analysis of cost/price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, in order to determine price reasonableness and cost realism. Reasonableness will be based on the overall evaluated proposed price and 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. For additional inforamt8ion regarding determining price reasonableness, see FAR 31.201-3.

(d) The Offeror’s estimating methodology, including their estimating, accounting and purchasing systems will be evaluated to ensure the systems can produce reasonable estimates in response to HFGCS requirements.

(e) The government will evaluate cost realism of each Offeror proposed pricing. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.504-1(d)(1) and 2.101). Cost information supporting a cost judged to be unrealistically high or low and mission capability risk identified during the evaluation of the proposal and included in the assessment of cost realism for each Offeror. Cost realism in the absence of cost or pricing data means a review of the proposed costs to determine if they are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of requirements and are consistent with the unique methods or performance described in the Offeror’s proposal. Additionally, cost realism of the pricing proposal will be evaluated by assessing the following:

1. The compatibility of proposed cost with the proposal scope and effort.

2. Whether the proposed labor rates and associated burdens reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort if the Offeror operates with reasonable economy and efficiency and utilizes personnel with the appropriate qualifications and experience.

3. Whether the cost estimate reflects a clear understanding of the requirements.

4. The risk associated with any proposed use of uncompensated overtime as it relates to the potential degradation of the level of technical expertise and potential for causing unrealistically low labor rates.

5. The risk associated with utilizing the proposed fully burdened labor rates.

(f) A comparison of an Offeror’s proposed prices and rates to the Offeror’s technical volume will be used to determine price realism. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed prices and rates are sufficient for the work performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

(g) For purposes of TEP calculation, the pricing matrix below provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods, such as Basic and Option years. Extended pricing per CLIN will be based on unit prices multiplied by the government provided estimated number of occurrences, or estimated labor hours as in Over & Above (O*A) labor CLINs.

(h) Additional information provided below details the pricing methodology to be used in evaluation of proposed pricing.

CLINs 0001, X002 through X007 will be evaluated for award purposes as follows:

CLIN

0001 Program Support Total proposed Program Support amount will be proposed separately by location.

Total Program Support costs will be added to the totals for the other evaluated line items, as a protion of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) be added to the totals for the other evaluated line items.

0002 Program Engineering The Proposed unit prices to operate and maintain a Contractor Operated and Maintained Support The Proposed unit prices to operate and maintain a Contractor Operated and Maintained

Base Supply (COMBS) for the base period for each location will be added together and multiplied by 12 (months).

XY02 COMBS Option years will be based on proposed unit prices for all locations multiplied by 12 (months) and added together. Proposed annual prices for the three option years will then be added together and added to the totals for the other evaluated line items.

0003 Maintenance Support The Proposed unit prices to provide Maintenance Suport for the base period for each location will be added together and multiplied by 12 (months).

XY03 Maintenance Support Option years will be based on proposed unit prices for all locations multiplied by 12 (months) and added together. Proposed annual prices for the three option years will then be added together and added to the totals for the other evaluated line items.

0004 Data None separately priced.

XY04 Data None separately priced.

0005 - XY07 Reserved

3.0 DISCUSSIONS

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

4.0 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.

5.0 REVIEWS AND VISITS

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

6.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and mission requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with 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. In the case that a discrepancy exists between the ITO and the Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 will take precedence.