Attachment_6_-_DRAFT_Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-2_(Evaluation_Factors_for_Award).pdf

ATTACHMENT 6 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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 Subfactor 4 Technical Performance Discriminators, Past Performance and Price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable in Technical subfactors 1-3. 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 in Technical subfactors 1-3, and superior technical capabilities in Technical Subfactor 4 Technical Performance Discriminators, and/or 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 1 Apr 16, 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, weakness, or significant weakness. If a deficiency is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal

DRAFT

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

ATTACHMENT 5 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. The Government also reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from the competitive range where the technical proposal does not require a major proposal revision, but the offeror is not among the most highly rated offerors.

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.

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c).

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (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 preaward debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, or a post award debriefing IAW FAR 15.506.

1.6. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative 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, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if offerors will be required to include EN responses in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions. 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

Site visits are not planned. 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.

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: Program Management Subfactor 2: Maintenance Subfactor 3: Supply Chain Management Subfactor 4: Technical Performance Discriminators

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability in subfactors 1 through 3 is a prerequisite to the best value analysis with potential trade-off between Subfactor 4 Technical Performance Discriminators, 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, Subfactor 4 (Technical Performance Discriminators) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to each other. Subfactor 4 Technical Performance Discriminators and Factor 2 Past Performance are each significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price). When combined, Subfactor 4 and Factor 2 are significantly more important than Factor 3.

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 Subfactors 1 through 3 on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. Technical

Subfactor 4 will be evaluated using all adjectival ratings outlined in Table 1 below. 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 Technical Subfactor 4, Past Performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all offerors technically acceptable in Subfactors 1 through 3 to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The Technical evaluation will be based on each’s offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Tradeoff considerations will only be applied to Subfactor 4 Technical Performance Discriminators. The remaining subfactors (1 through 3) will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable and will not include tradeoff considerations. To be eligible for award, an offeror must be rated Acceptable or above in all subfactors, either initially, or as a result of discussions. Any subfactor rated as Marginal (Yellow) or Unacceptable (Red) will be considered unawardable. A single deficiency identified within any subfactor will result in an Unacceptable rating for that subfactor. The technical evaluation will also consider risk. Technical Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Technical Risk will not receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings. The subfactor ratings are as follows in Table 1:

TABLE 1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The ratings will be applied to each subfactor as follows:

Subfactor 4 Technical Performance Discriminators: This is the only subfactor to include Technical tradeoff considerations. All technical ratings in Table 1 above apply to this subfactor. As a minimum, the offeror must meet all criteria for the subfactor to be awardable. To receive an Outstanding (Blue) or Good (Purple) rating, an offeror’s proposal must include one or more strengths, as identified by the Government evaluation team. For this evaluation, a strength is defined as an aspect of an offeror’s proposal which has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

The technical risk evaluation for this subfactor will focus on weaknesses or significant weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach for the subfactor. The descriptions for risk may be found in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.2.1.2, Table 2B. Technical Risk considers the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For this evaluation, a weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal which increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal which appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. For any weakness/significant weakness identified, the Government evaluation team will consider the possibility and impact to the program if the weakness/significant weakness were to occur. The offeror’s risk assessment provided IAW Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 3.2.7 will be evaluated by the Government, in addition to any Government assessed risk. Tradeoff considerations for this subfactor will be based on identified strengths, weaknesses and significant weaknesses.

Subfactors 1 Program Management, 2 Maintenance, and 3 Supply Chain Management:

The only ratings which apply to these subfactors are Acceptable (Green) and Unacceptable (Red). There are no tradeoff considerations for any of these subfactors.

As a minimum, the offeror must meet all criteria for each subfactor to be awardable. For technical risk, the Government will use the process described in Subfactor 4 above, and will utilize the same definitions for weaknesses and significant weaknesseses. For the best value award determination, all offerors rated as Acceptable (Green) will be considered equal for these subfactors, even if there are differences in weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses.

The evaluation criteria for each subfactor is as follows:

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Program Management (PM)

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed PM approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (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 components:

a. A plan to manage the Quality System which ensures compliance with ISO 9001/American National Standards Institute/American Society for Quality Control AS9100 and FAA requirements are met in accordance with PWS 1.31.1.

b. A plan to schedule phase and time change/time between overhaul. (PWS 1.5.3)

c. An effective plan to support mission essential services during crisis, deployments, drop-in maintenance, aircraft on ground, contract field team, employee strikes which ensures PWS requirements are met. A proposed plan to provide mission essential services during crisis will be evaluated IAW DFARS 252.237-7023 and 7024(b) (1) and (2) as a minimum. (PWS 1.23)

d. Signed letters of intent with the OEM, Engine Maintenance agreements, and subcontractors ensuring PWS requirements are met. (PWS 1.0, 1.5.1, 1.21)

e. An approach to facilitate a successful transition to next contractor or retirement of fleet during phase out. (PWS 1.32.2)

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Maintenance

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Maintenance approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (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 components:

a. An ability to obtain and maintain access to required data systems which ensures the requirements of the PWS are met. (PWS 1.7, 1.8, 1.9)

b. Providing the effective method(s) to identify and perform Main Operating Base (MOB) maintenance to meet MC, NMCS, HSDR, in accordance with PWS. An effective method will show an approach for the ability to meet mission capable rates and other maintenance, including the adherence to FAA, OEM, and regulatory requirements.

(PWS 1.14.1, 1.14.2)

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Supply Chain Management (SCM)

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed SCM 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 components:

a. An approach to procure long lead items. (PWS 1.6)

b. Ability to manage pre-positioned engines to meet PWS requirements. (PWS 1.5.5)

c. Inventory management system database meets the requirements of PWS. (PWS 1.6)

d. An effective approach for an Aging Aircraft/DMSMS program. The approach must address supply chain through 2030 and beyond (not limited but to include parts obsolescence). (PWS para 1.6.2, 1.17, 1.30, 1.33.10.1)

2.2.4. Subfactor 4: Technical Performance Discriminators

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (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 components:

a. A facilities plan which includes effective capability and flow of full workload processes, and ensures the requirements of the PWS are met or exceeded to include depot maintenance, paint/interior, and drop in maintenance. (PWS para 1.2, 1.6, 1.22.4, 1.24, 1.33.1, 1.33.8, Table 2-1, para 3.1)

b. An effective approach for managing subcontractor’s performance/participation, schedule and cost to ensure PWS requirements are met or exceeded. Approach includes expertise in management of organized work force and effective plan for strike mitigation. The offeror’s subcontracting approach must clearly describe subcontract arrangements and relationships, roles, and work to be performed by subcontractors as well as flow down of systems requirements which ensure the PWS requirements are met. (PWS 1.24.2,1.33.10.4, 1.34.4)

c. An approach to operate and maintain an inventory and supply ordering system which ensures effective supportability of delivery requirements in accordance with the PWS.

The approach must include an effective process for worldwide inventory control and SCM for both Contractor Furnished Property (CFP) and Government Furnished Property (GFP) which ensures MC, NMCS, HSDR, Shipping overseas (AOG/COMBS), requirements are met or exceeded. This process shall include, but not be limited to, managing parts, clearing foreign customs, C-21 spares support methodology including procurement of the spares and inventory management (e.g. location of both CFP and GFP spares). (PWS Para 1.5, 1.5.3, 1.5.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.32, 1.32.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2)

d. A phase-in approach in order to meet MC, NMCS, HSDR on day one of full performance. Ensure the approach contains the following items:

1. Provide an effective approach to develop a milestone schedule with critical paths to ensure the offeror is fully operational by contract performance start date.

(PWS 1.32.1.1)

2. Provide a staffing plan detailing how the contractor will procure qualified personnel with a country clearance, how passports, visas, security clearances will be handled and maintained, and address how the offeror will handle OCONUS employment and labor laws. (PWS 1.32.1)

3. Provide a stand up plan for implementation of SCM with COMBS. (PWS 1.32.1.1)

e. Deployment Scenario response plan. (PWS 1.22, 1.22.1, 1.22.2, 1.22.3, 1.22.4, 1.33.12)

f. Documentation of a current valid facility security clearance and safeguarding for classified information/material at the contractor facility at the classification level of SECRET or higher. (PWS 1.24, 1.32.1)

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 assessment ratings IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

TABLE 2- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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 with the exception of 2.2.1 element d., 2.2.3 element c., and 2.2.4 element f. of the Technical subfactors. 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.

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort..

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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 Technical subfactors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)), as defined in paragraph

4.3.1 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information forms contained in Attachment 1.1 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 described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Degree Description

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.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

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

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

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the C-21 CLS requirement.

Consideration may be given to the following (in order of greater relevancy to least relevancy) when determining past performance:

1. Lear 35/A

2. Other Lear business aircraft

3. Similar commercial type of aircraft to the Lear 35/A

4. Other commercial aircraft

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. Fleet size

2. Dispersed fleet of two or more locations within CONUS and OCONUS

3. Long term deployment to OCONUS

4. Quantity of engines/components repaired per year

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

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 technical subfactors. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to complexity:

1. Dispersed fleet of two or more locations within CONUS and OCONUS

2. Long term deployment to OCONUS

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 C- 21 CLS 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) (to include ratings and supporting narratives), 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 less than satisfactory performance. 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. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

(BLUE)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some or many.

Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective 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.

UNKNOWN (UK)

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

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. 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 a "Neutral 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 record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Substantial, Satisfactory, or Limited Confidence, may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral 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) price reasonableness (including completeness),

(2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). 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 TEP of all offerors. This TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology with the Price Matrix. The TEP calculation methodology is included in the Price Matrix (Attachment 2) as a separate tab titled “Calculation Methodology.” These calculations will include all evaluation periods:

the Phase-In Period, the Basic Period, and all Option Periods. The offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in Attachment 2, Price Matrix.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in the referenced tab. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

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 15.404-1(b)(2) 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 reviewed for completeness and compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, para 5.2.1. Incomplete proposals will be considered unawardable.

2.4.2. Unbalanced 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 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 an unacceptable risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism.

To evaluate price realism, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may determine sufficient price realism based on adequate price competition, but may also use other techniques, as needed, including techniques not listed in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

2.4.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

2.4.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with 52.212-1, ITO, pricing instructions. The TEP calculation methodology is included in the Price Matrix (Attachment 2) as a separate tab titled “Calculation Methodology.” The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the extended values for Offeror’s proposed prices for the sixteen month Basic Period (four month Transition and one-year full performance), the eight one-year Option Periods and the final eight-month Option Period.

Proposed pricing shall be provided in the Attachment 2 - Price Matrix cells designated for proposed unit prices per CLIN/SubCLIN. Unit prices for all performance periods shall be provided in Attachment 2 - Price Matrix spreadsheet. Spreadsheet formulas will calculate extended evaluated pricing based on multiplication of proposed unit prices by evaluation quantities estimated by the Government. Extended pricing for all years of contract performance will be summed to yield total evaluated pricing for each CLIN.

For purposes of TEP calculation, the Best Estimated Quantities in the Attachment 2 - Price Matrix provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods, such as Phase-In, the Basic Period and Option Periods. Extended prices per CLIN will be based on unit prices multiplied by the government-provided estimated quantities: number of occurrences, estimated dollars, or estimated hours.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Not all CLINs will be evaluated in the TEP.

2.4.6. Rounding

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

Documentation to support rounding will be provided in Section 2 of the Price Volume, as well as actual rounding in Section 4 and in the completed Price Matrix, Attachment 2. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP.

2.4.7. Annual Pricing Changes

Evaluation will include review of annual pricing changes (or escalation) to assist in the determination of balanced pricing. All supporting pricing documentation related to annual pricing changes provided in the Pricing Volume will be reviewed and considered.

2.4.8. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing:

The Government will review information provided in Section 2 of the Price Volume regarding cost or price 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, balanced, and realistic pricing.

2.4.9. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government will 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. Offerors may provide their rationale as to why reduced pricing does not increase performance risk.

2.4.10. Proposed Fixed Rate Support

The Government will review Section 2 of the Price Volume to ensure reasonableness, balanced pricing and price realism of the proposed fixed rates. As fixed priced rates, proposed rates shall be in accordance with Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)/Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) as applicable. Proposed fixed wrap rates in contract out-years as fixed priced rates shall not be exceeded to include any upward adjustment in future out-years except as allowable under provisions of SCLS/CBA. Note all proposed fixed rates—whether labor or material/subcontractor factor, shall be fully burdened (loaded) as composite rates representing a composite of base rates and indirect rates.

Offerors are strongly advised to seriously note risk for fixed pricing/fixed pricing out-years. Such risk is considered contractor risk and not risk to the Government. Proposed pricing shall be sufficient to cover such contractor risk of future unknowns, such as subcontractor rate increases in contract out-years or changes in designated subcontractor or vendor.

2.4.11. GFP/GFE/GFF

The Government will review information provided in Section 2 of the Price Volume to verify each offeror’s compliance with Addendum 52.212-1, ITO, pertaining to offerors’ understanding of items (including property, equipment, material, and facilities) provided by the Government.

2.4.12. CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM

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

2.4.13. Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)

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 or Collective Bargaining Agreement. Compliance with the SCLS is the responsibility of the Offeror and subsequent contract awardee.

2.4.14. Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to check compliance with Addendum 52.212-1-ITO, paragraph 6.5 requirement to identify the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and DCMA office.

2.4.15. 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.