Appendix_E_-_Section_M_-_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

APPENDIX E

Part IV – Representations and Instructions

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 Technical Risk (Factor 2), Past Performance (Factor 3) and Price (Factor 4) among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation and is 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 technical risk and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.1.1. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for 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 “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 is impractical, 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 15.306. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1-Technical, Factor 2-Technical Risk, Factor 3-Past Performance, Factor 4-Price, or a combination of the four 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 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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 & Visits- Deleted

1.8 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, and System Requirements Document (SRD), 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. In the case that a discrepancy exists between Section L- Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

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: Instrument Panel Structure Subfactor 2: SRD Requirements Subfactor 3: Installation Design Subfactor 4: Program Schedule Subfactor 5: Small Business Subcontracting Requirements

Factor 2: Technical Risk Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: 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 Technical Risk, 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, the following is the order of importance in the integrated assessment:

• Factor 2-Technical Risk and Factor 3-Past Performance when combined are approximately equal to Factor 4-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.

Technical Risk will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below against the same criteria as described in Factor 1-Technical, paragraph 2.2. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.5 below. The SSA will then assess the Technical Risk ratings, Past Performance ratings, and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating.

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Instrument Panel Structure

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for instrument panel structure without modification to the exisiting instrument panel structure. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that the proposed installation design shall not require any alteration to the existing instrument panel structure in accordance with SCAI SRD 3.6.6 and SOW 3.1.4.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: SRD Requirements

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed SCAI approach to meet all SRD requirements.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provide convincing rationale that the proposed unit will meet all requirements of the following elements: For Offerors who propose a solution without mitigation, the subfactor element is met when the proposed solution is deemed technically acceptable in accordance with all SCAI SRD requirements.

a. For Offerors who propose a unit that meets all SRD requirements, the subfactor element is met when the Offeror successfully demonstrates how the unit meets each SRD requirement.

b. For Offerors who propose a solution requiring mitigation, the subfactor element is met when the Offeror successfully:

1. Identifies those SRD requirements that are met by the proposed unit and demonstrates how each instance meets the requirement identified in the SRD.

2. Identifies those SRD requirements that are not met by the proposed unit.

3. Quantifies the difference(s) stated in 2 above between the proposed unit and the requirements specified in the SRD.

4. Identifies what mitigation actions will be pursued during the execution of this effort to ensure the proposed solution is in full compliance with the requirements identified in the

SRD.

c. For all Offerors, the proposal shall demonstrate how the proposed unit has either been “flight qualified” through test and demo in a flight environment similar to that of a B-1B, or has been “flight proven” through successful operation. (SOW 3.1.3) A proposed unit which is a prototype or a system model that has not been “flight qualified” or “flight proven” shall be considered unacceptable.

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Installation Design

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed installation design. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s installation design indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and ensures the unit can be successfully installed by Air Force personnel within 24 man-hours IAW SOW 3.1.10.

2.2.4. Subfactor 4: Program Schedule

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed notional program schedule. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirments identified in CDRL AXXX, DID XXXX, SOW paragraph 3.2, and meets the requirements.

2.2.5. Subfactor 5: Small Business Participation

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides convincing rationale which ensures the requirements of clause TAFB H002 “Small Business Subcontracting Requirements” are met. This requirement is in addition to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required by clause FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which is not part of this subfactor evaluation.

2.3. Factor 2 – Technical Risk:

The Technical Risk evaluation focuses on weaknesses and mitigation strategies associated with an offeror’s proposed approach for the subfactors listed in Factor 1 – Technical, and considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Technical Subfactors 2, 3 and 4 will be evauated for technical risk and will receive a single risk rating for both subfactors combined. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable. The risk ratings are defined as follows:

Rating

Description – Technical Risk

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.

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.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

2.4. Factor 3 – 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 program requirements, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.4.1. Ratings:

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5

– Performance Confidence Assessments:

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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

2.4.2. 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 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.

2.4.2.1. Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the 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.

2.4.2.2. 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 modifications/services, 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 significant subcontractor(s)), as definded in paragraph 5.3.1 of the ITO, Section L 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.

Rating Description

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

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

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

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

NO CONFIDENCE

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

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The past performance information forms contained in Attachment 2 of ITO, Section L 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

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, similar modification/services performed on the B-1 Aircraft or other large scale airframes and the similarities between a given Past Performance effort providing similar SCAI functionality or other similar modifications.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

1. Quantity of flight indicators produced per year

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

1. Instrument modification

2. Requirements compliance

3. Installation design changes/rework

NOTE: Relevancy for Subfactor 5, Small Business, will only be rated as Relevant or Not Relevant. For example Past Peformance examples that included a Small Business Subcontracting Plan or Small Business Participation Plan would be considered Relevant regardless of aircraft type or contract effort.

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Cost Plus Fixed Fee &/or Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) of previous effort as compared to the SCAI requirement.

2.4.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. 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:

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed may contain some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear, or were, satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractors proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

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

UNKNOWN (UK)

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

2.4.3. 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 2.4.1 above. The rating is not based on a quantitative analysis. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. 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.

2.5. Factor 4 – Price Evaluation

2.5.1 Cost Realism

The proposed costs for cost reimbursable CLINs will be evaluated for cost realism. Analysis of cost reaslism will be performed on the specific cost elements identified in the ITO to determine if the proposed cost elements is realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are sconsistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the technical proposal. In addition, cost realism will be used to determine the most probable cost of performance. IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2)(i) the probable cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine best value.

2.5.2 Price Reasonableness

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

Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

Unreasonable prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of adequate understanding of the requirement. Offerors are cautioned to not use underbidding as a pricing strategy with the intention of recovering under-bid costs after contract award via Requests for Equitable Adjustments (REAs) or other devices.

2.5.3. 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.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. 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.

2.5.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

Other than cost or pricing data as required in the ITO, Section L, will be evaluated to determine cost realism. If requested by the CO, additional 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.

2.5.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)-

Evaluation of proposed pricing for the EMD phase will be based on review of pricing provided in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment 1A. Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs) in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment 1A are for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government nor guarantee such quantities or prices will be purchased during the contract period of performance.

The offeror’s pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the ITO, Section L. The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable Offerors. The TEP will include the sum of all the extended-proposed-price-calculations for each CLIN.

These calculations will include all ordering periods, to include EMD Phase, and Kit Production, spares and Over & Above.

2.5.5.1. All pricing for supplies or services must be reflected in the Price Volume and the Pricing Matrix, Attachment 1A, only. The Pricing Matrix will be used to develop the TEP. In addition, the Pricing Matrix will be used to complete Section B of the resulting contract. Should discrepancies exist in unit prices between the hard copy and electronic copy of the price model, the hard copy will be used for the TEP.

2.5.5.2. The proposed Cost Plus Fixed Fee and Government set Performance Incentive percentage will be calculated as part of the TEP. For purposes of TEP calculation, the Estimated Quanities (EQs) in Pricing Matrix, Attachment 1A provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by ordering periods. Extended prices per CLIN will be based on unit prices multiplied by the government provided BEQs for each ordering period.

2.5.5.3. Each offeror’s TEP may be adjusted by the Government as a result of the price realism analysis based on the Government determined probable cost.

2.5.5.4. Information provided below in Table 1 details the pricing calculation methodology to be used in evaluation of proposed pricing.

2.5.5.5 Rounding - Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

The Pricing Matrix format provides for decimal places that must be IAW the required decimal format. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP.

2.5.6 Hourly Labor Rate for O&A - The Government will review the Price Volume to ensure Offeror-specific labor categories that form the basis for the proposed labor rate have been provided. The Government will also review the Price Volume to ensure the development of the proposed wrap labor rates have been provided in detail including all fringe benefits, indirect costs, and fee.

2.5.7 Subcontractor Pricing - The Government will review the Pricing Volume information pertaining to subcontractor pricing as required in ITO, Section L. Reasonable pricing determination as it relates to subcontractors will be reviewed. Evaluation of subcontractor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair & reasonable.

2.5.8 Contractor Furnished Material - The Government will review Price Volume information to verify each Offeror’s compliance with ITO, Section L, pertaining to the Offeror’s understanding of requirements for Contractor Furnished Materials.

2.5.9 Proposed Price 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 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.

CLIN Contract Type Effort TEP Methodology

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (Estimated Cost) EMD Sum of Target Cost from CPFF Cost Sheet

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (Fixed Fee) EMD Sum of Fixed Fee from CPFF Cost Sheet

Performance Incentive Performance Incentive 5% of Target Cost from CPFF Cost Sheet

0004 Installation Kits

0004AA Firm Fixed Price Installaton Kits Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) X proposed Unit Price

0004AB Firm Fixed Price Installation Kits Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) X proposed Unit Price

0004AC Firm Fixed Price Installation Kits Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) X proposed Unit Price 0005 Spares

0005AA Firm Fixed Price Spares Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) X proposed Unit Price

0005AB Firm Fixed Price Spares Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) X proposed Unit Price 0006 Fixed Price Over & Above All Ordering Period Proposed Labor rate x est 100 hours

Not Seperately Priced Data Not included in TEP

0008 Cost Reimbursable Travel Not included in TEP

TEP Methodology

2.5.10 Estimating Methodology Review - The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding estimating, accounting, and purchasing systems. This includes information pertaining to the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement and Cost Accounting System (CAS) compliance in preparation of this proposal. Offerors are cautioned to review compliance as it relates to their specific corporate policy.

Deviations from established systems or Disclosure Statement or CAS compliance as provided in the Offerors’ explanation in the Price Volume will be reviewed. Explanation of such deviations will also be reviewed.

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

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

2.5.13 Purchasing System - As provided in the Price Volume, purchasing systems will be reviewed.

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

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

2.5.15 Past Experience Basis of Estimate

Government will review your explanation of how the past experience relates to the current effort including similarities and differences. The review will also include examining how cost/price data from past experiences was adapted to this effort.

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

2.5.17 Government Field Support Agencies - The Government will review the Price Volume to check compliance with ITO, Section L, requirement to identify the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and DCMA office.

2.5.18 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 pricing data as believed necessary to support, justify or clarify their proposed pricing.