Section_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.docx

Section M - 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 Section L - Instructions to Offerors, of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal and superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced Offerors.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 04 Mar 2011, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. The new DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 01 April 2016 will not be utilized for this Source Selection. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, 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.

1.9. Supplemental Responsibility Requirements

Facility Clearance as required in paragraph 3.5 of Section L, Instruction to Offerors, the Offeror, and subcontractors as required, must possess or acquire prior to award a facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD254) attached to this solicitation. The Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) will be used to verify facility clearances. Offerors who do not have a facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD254) attached to this solicitation in the ISFD database prior to award will be considered non-responsible and will not be eligible for award. The Government cannot sponsor Offerors for a facility clearance under this solicitation.

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: Software Sustainment Services Subfactor 2: Modification Services Subfactor 3: Program Management Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential 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 significantly more important than 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. For each subfactor, the Offeror must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements and provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements. 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 with the subfactor ratings, and the overall Technical rating.

2.2.2. Subfactor 1: Software Sustainment Services

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed software sustainment approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. A software sustainment plan that ensures processes and certification requirements are met IAW PWS paragraphs 1.6.7, 1.6.7.3.

b. A software configuration management plan that assures configuration management from initial to fielding efforts for software are met IAW PWS paragraphs 1.6.7, 1.6.7.1, 1.6.7.2, 1.6.7.4

c. A software documentation plan that addresses quality processes and procedures are met IAW PWS paragraphs 1.6.7, 1.6.7.5.

2.2.3. Subfactor 2: Modification Services

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed modification approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. An approach to manage systems engineering that ensures system engineering discipline while practices and procedures are met IAW PWS paragraphs 1.6.5, 1.6.5.1, 1.6.5.4, 1.6.5.5.

b. An approach to conduct modification management that ensures successful modification efforts are accomplished from requirements definition through fielding and sustainment IAW PWS paragraphs 1.6.5.3, 1.6.5.6, 1.6.5.8, 1.6.5.9, 1.6.6.

c. An approach to Scenario #1 modification that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements associated with a non-recurring engineering support task IAW PWS paragraph 1.6.5.7.

d. An approach to Scenario #2 modification that demonstrates an understanding of the requirements associated with a modification IAW PWS paragraph 1.6.5 and all applicable subparagraphs.

2.2.4. Subfactor 3: 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). 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 components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. A program management plan that ensures the Offeror will successfully manage the N2CS program IAW PWS paragraphs 1.6.1, 4.1.8.

b. An approach to manage and accomplish transition and phase-in, which ensures the contractor will meet contractual requirements and be fully operational at the beginning of the full performance IAW PWS paragraphs 1.6.1.4, 1.6.2, 1.6.4, 4.1.8.6, 4.1.8.7, 4.1.8.8.

c. An approach that ensures the Government Small Business requirement of 20% of total contract value as required in attachment “Appendix F- Small Business Requirements” are met, in addition to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

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

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.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all Offerors rated as “Substantial 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 five (5) 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 Technical subfactors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and essential subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

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

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

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

RELEVANT

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

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

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 N2CS requirements. Consideration may be given to the following activities when determining past performance:

1. Software sustainment

2. Aircraft modifications

3. Field Service Support

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. Size and number of software releases

2. Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform

3. Number of field service representatives 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 subfactors listed in Factor 1 Technical.

1. Level of software maintenance performed

2. Role in aircraft modification programs

3. Level of system knowledge required for field support

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to Price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost-Reimbursable, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the N2CS 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:

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

(BLUE)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)

(PURPLE)

During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

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 quantitative analysis. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4. Factor 3 –Price

The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Price factor will be price reasonableness, price realism, balanced pricing, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined 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 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 (two-month transition), all five (5) one-year Option Periods, two (2) one-year Incentive Option Periods, and the six (6) 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 prices proposed in Attachment 1, Pricing Matrix.

2.4.1 Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for price 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 15.404-1(b). If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price. Complete pricing is one aspect of reasonable pricing. Proposals will be reviewed for complete pricing to ensure all required pricing is provided in the Pricing Matrix.

2.4.2 Balanced pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains 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 PCO if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, 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.

Pricing will be evaluated to ensure proposals do not include unexplained variances between either separate CLINs, within the same CLIN, or subsequent periods of performance.

2.4.3 Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, and must ensure the price does not pose a risk to performance. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price realism. 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. The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.4.4 Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the PCO, 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 balanced pricing.

2.4.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions. Table 1 below will demonstrate the TEP calculation methodology. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the Base Period (2 month transition, five (5) one-year option periods, two (2) one-year Incentive option periods, and the six (6)-month extension period. The six (6)-month extension period unit prices will be based on the proposed last option period unit prices. The six (6)-month extension period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six (6)-month extension period is not to be considered part of the last option period and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.

The Pricing Matrix will be used to develop the TEP. Within the Pricing Matrix spreadsheet, proposed unit prices shall be input by Offerors in the yellow highlighted cells. Extended pricing will be automatically calculated using estimated quantities provided within the spreadsheet.

2.4.5.1 For purposes of TEP calculation, the Best Estimated Quantities provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods, such as the basic period and option periods. The 6 month Extension Period pricing shall be based on the last option period unit prices. The Pricing Matrix will automatically fill in 6-month extension period prices from the last Option Periods prices input in Attachment 1 (Pricing Matrix). Extended Prices per CLIN will be based on unit prices multiplied by the government provided estimated quantities, number of occurrences, or estimated hours.

2.4.5.2 Information provided in Table 1 below demonstrates the general CLIN structure of the requirements and explains details regarding instruction of submitting proposed pricing. Explanation of proposed pricing evaluation methodology is provided below. To develop the TEP for the contract, CLINs X100 through X300, X302, X303 and X600 will be proposed for evaluation and subsequent award purposes as shown in Table 1 below.

2.4.6 CLIN Structure and TEP Calculation Methodology:

The evaluated TEP is based on evaluation of proposed unit pricing multiplied by the best estimated quantities provided in Attachment 1 (Pricing Matrix). Note that evaluation CLIN quantities provided does not in any way reflect or guarantee contract quantities after award. Calculation methodology is provided in Table 1. Pricing will be based on TEP evaluation that includes review for price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism. All supporting documentation provided in the Price Volume will also be considered as part of price evaluation.

Table 1 – CLIN STRUCTURE / CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

(FFP)

Proposed unit price multiplied by the number of months per year designated for evaluation purposes. These unit prices per month include 12 months for Options 1 through 7, and 6 months for the extension. The resulting extended price per year will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for these CLINs, which will be added together for the overall CLIN extended price.

Proposed unit price multiplied by the number of months per year designated for evaluation purposes. These unit prices per month include 12 months for Options 1 through 7, and 6 months for the extension. The resulting extended price per year will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for these CLINs, which will be added together for the overall CLIN extended price.

Proposed unit price multiplied by the number of months designated for evaluation purposes. These unit prices per month include 2 months for the Basic Period. The resulting extended price will be the total evaluated price for this CLIN.

Proposed unit price multiplied by the number of months per year designated for evaluation purposes. These unit prices per month include 12 months for Options 1 through 7, and 6 months for the extension. The resulting extended price per year will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for these CLINs, which will be added together for the overall CLIN extended price.

Non-Recurring Engineering

(FFP)

To Be Negotiated (TBN) Not included in the TEP

(T&M) Proposed T&M rate multiplied by the estimated number of hours for Option Periods 1 – 7, and the 6-month extension.

Proposed unit price multiplied by the number of months per year designated for evaluation purposes. These unit prices per month include 12 months for Options 1 through 7, and 6 months for the extension. The resulting extended price per year will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for these CLINs, which will be added together for the overall CLIN extended price.

(FFP)

To Be Negotiated (TBN) Not included in the TEP

(CPIF)

To Be Negotiated (TBN) Not included in the TEP

(CR)

To Be Negotiated (TBN) Not included in the TEP

Proposed unit price multiplied by the number of months per year designated for evaluation purposes. These unit prices per month include 12 months for Options 1 through 7, and 6 months for the extension. The resulting extended price per year will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for these CLINs, which will be added together for the overall CLIN extended price.

(CR)

To Be Negotiated (TBN) Not included in the TEP

(NSP)

Not evaluated

2.4.7 Estimating, Purchasing, and Accounting Systems

The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems. This includes information pertaining to the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement, if applicable to the specific Offeror. Offerors are cautioned to review compliance as it relates to their specific corporate policy. Deviations from established systems or disclosure statement as provided in the Offeror’s explanation in the Price Volume will be reviewed. Explanation of such deviations will also be reviewed. DCMA/DCAA approval status will also be noted. Since the resulting contract will include the ability to negotiate CPIF and FFP tasks using certified cost or pricing data, the Offeror must have an approved accounting system to be eligible for award IAW FAR 16.301-3(a)(3).

2.4.8 Time & Material Rates

All rates proposed will be evaluated in support of the determination of reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing.

2.4.9 Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques & Methods The Government will review the 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.

2.4.10 Past Experience Basis of Estimates

The relevance and application of the Offeror’s price estimates based on past experience will be reviewed by the government.

2.4.11 Proposed Price or Cost Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government shall review 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 reduction, such as profit, volume or location discounts, indirect rate reductions and so forth. Also, Offeror’s explanation of how such reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at performance risk will be evaluated.

2.4.12 Subcontractor/Vendor Pricing

Probable subcontractor/vendor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology used to determine subcontractor/vendor pricing fair and reasonable.

2.4.13 Rounding

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. If any pricing proposal deviates from the required format, the government will apply the specified format from Section L to determine the extended pricing and TEP.

2.4.14 Annual Price Changes

Proposed pricing increases greater than 5% annually will be verified and addressed pertaining to price reasonableness and balanced pricing.

2.4.15 Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding cost assumptions utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand Offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.16 Government Furnished Property

The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume to verify each Offeror’s compliance with Section L, ITO, pertaining to Offerors’ understanding of items (including property, equipment, material, and facilities) provided by the Government.

2.4.17 Government Field Support Agencies

The government will review and confirm the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) identified.

2.4.18 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 price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.