Section_M.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Source Selection Plan Attachment 4

For Official Use Only 1

Section M

Evaluation Factors For Award

General (MG) Basis for Contract Award

The government shall evaluate all offerors in accordance with the Request for Proposal to make a best value decision. The government shall notify the offeror, in writing, that, in the government’s judgment, provides the best value.

MG1. General Guidance

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. 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 the Request for Proposal (RFP) 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.

MG1.0.1. 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. 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.

MG2. Source Selection

MG2.0.1. SSA Decision

The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described herein). 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.

MG2.0.2. Source Selection Criteria

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), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, and Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) Mandatory Procedures and Guidance. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

MG2.0.3. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

For Official Use Only 2

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.

MG2.0.4. 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.

MG2.0.5. 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.

MG2.0.6. Evaluation Methodology

The proposals shall be evaluated against the factors / subfactors in Section M, Evaluation Factors For Award.

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 section MT. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in section MPP. Price will be evaluated as described in section MCP. 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.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the PCO reserves the right to award a contract(s) without the opportunity for proposal revision.

MG2.0.7. Evaluation Factors for Award

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 Factor 1, Subfactor 1 (MTSF1): Contractor Requirements Factor 1, Subfactor 2 (MTSF2): Trade-Off curves for Sporadic and Highly Variable Demand Items

For Official Use Only 3

Factor 1, Subfactor 3 (MTSF3): Live Demonstration of Inventory Simulation Capabilities Factor 1, Subfactor 4 (MTSF4): Small Business (SB) Participation

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

MG2.0.8. 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 (Factor 2) and Price (Factor 3). 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) is significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price).

MG2.1. 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 these 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.

MG2.2. 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 the offeror 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.

MG2.3. 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.

Technical (MT) Evaluation

MT1. Technical Evaluation Methodology

For Official Use Only 4

The government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The offeror's proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet requirements.

Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual technical subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror.

Technical Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

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 technical risk in determining overall acceptability.

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, and the overall Technical rating. The government will only evaluate technical risk pertaining to subfactor 1, Contractor Requirements.

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.

Factor 1: Technical Factor 1, Subfactor 1 (MTSF1): Contractor Requirements Factor 1, Subfactor 2 (MTSF2): Trade-Off curves for Sporadic and Highly Variable Demand Items Factor 1, Subfactor 3 (MTSF3): Live Demonstration of Inventory Simulation Capabilities Factor 1, Subfactor 3 (MTSF3): Small Business (SB) Participation

Technical Subfactor (TSF) 1 Evaluation

MTSF1. Contractor Requirements

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed Contractor Requirements approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The offeror shall provide a detailed approach which ensures requirements in PWS Sections, 1.4 through 1.4.3.7 are met. As a minimum, the offeror’s approach shall include details of how:

a) The offeror will acquire data, perform analyses and generate reports and charts required by the PWS. The offeror shall provide a plan for how the requirements in PWS sections 1.4 through 1.4.3.7 will be satisfied.

For Official Use Only 5

b) D200A will be emulated. The offeror shall provide a plan and description of how their proposed D200A emulation will replicate D200A demand planning, inventory planning and supply planning logic to mirror D200A buy and repair requirements (reference PWS 1.2.1, 1.4.1, 1.4.2.2, 1.4.3.7).

c) The offeror will simulate the impact changes in demand rates had on the D200 computation (comp). This analysis is a comparison between the baseline comp and the simulated comp, using the previous year's rates. The offeror shall provide a step-by-step description of the process which will be used to make this comparison (reference PWS 1.4.2.2).

d) The offeror’s proposed inventory models and simulation capability will meet the requirements of PWS 1.4.2.5, 1.4.2.5.1 and 1.4.2.5.2. The offeror shall provide a detailed description of the inventory models which will be used to manage sporadic and highly variable demand items to produce 3-way trade-off curves between customer support, inventory investment (cost) and the amount of buy and repair workload (buy and repair actions). The offeror shall provide a detailed description of the inventory simulation software that will be used to assess the performance of said inventory models. The offeror shall indicate the programming language or languages the simulation capability is programmed in. The offeror shall provide examples of analyses which have been conducted using simulation capability and shall annotate who the customers of such analyses were.

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 with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Technical Subfactor (TSF) 2 Evaluation

MTSF2. Trade-Off curves for Sporadic and Highly Variable Demand Items

The Government will assess the offeror’s trade-off curves for sporadic and highly variable demand items. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors

(ITO).

The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal includes two trade off curves, one for sporadic demand items and one for highly variable demand items, which meet the following criteria:

1. Trade-off curves were produced using Sample Data provided as part of this solicitation.

2. Customer wait-time is plotted on the vertical axis for both trade-off curves.

3. Total annual buy and repair obligation costs (in dollars) is plotted on the horizontal axis for both trade-off curves.

4. Expected number of repair actions per year are depicted on the graph by using lines of constant workload with multiple lines on the trade-off curve graph (each line should represent a different workload investment option).

5. The offeror’s proposal describes the business rules used to segment items from the Sample Data file into sporadic demand versus highly variable demand categories.

6. The offeror’s proposal adequately describes how the trade-off curves were produced and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements set forth in

For Official Use Only 6 paragraphs 1.4.2.5.1 and 1.4.2.5.2 of the PWS with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Technical Subfactor (TSF) 3 Evaluation

MTSF2. Live Demonstration of Inventory Simulation Capabilities

The Government will assess the offeror’s live demonstration of inventory simulation capabilities.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO).

Live demonstration shall be considered acceptable when the offeror's demonstration includes:

1. Successfully providing a list of levels by NIIN corresponding to a point on the trade-off curve provided in the offeror’s proposal to technical subfactor 2.

2. Successfully communicate inventory simulation settings and assumptions.

3. Successfully simulate the performance of inventory levels over a three year period with dynamic levels updates and using a minimum of 10 randomized demand sequences per NIIN. The randomized demand sequences must be generated using the transactional demand histories provided in the Sample Data. The randomized demand sequences shall be generated by playing out the actual historical data in multiple different randomized sequences. The frequency of dynamic levels updates should be communicated when simulation settings and assumptions are discussed. Performance metrics should be averaged across the number of demand sequences used with the following being computed and communicated at the end of the simulation:

a. Based on simulation results, offeror must compute and communicate average customer wait time for each of the 3 years in the simulation.

b. Based on simulation results, offeror must compute and communicate average buy and repair actions for each of the 3 years in the simulation

c. Based on simulation results, offeror must compute and communicate average buy and repair obligation costs for each of the 3 years in the simulation

4. Successfully export the average customer wait time, buy and repair actions and buy and repair obligation costs, by NIIN, to Excel

The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror demonstrates all of the above essential components within the allotted three hours provided.

Technical Subfactor (TSF) 4 Evaluation

MTSF4. SB

MTSF4.1. SB Evaluation

The government will assess the offeror's proposed SB Participation Plan. All offerors, both large and small businesses, will be evaluated on the extent of participation of small business concerns in performance of this contract opportunity. The government will evaluate the extent to which each offeror identifies and commits to SB in the performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture or first-tier subcontractor. The government will consider the complexity and variety of the work SB’s are to perform and the realism related to SB participation of the proposal.

Offeror’s proposal must meet the minimum mandatory total SB participation of 10 percent (through collective SB participation from any type of SB or sub-category SB). Participation will be measured in dollars as a percentage of total contract value. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will be evaluated as small business participation.

For Official Use Only 7

Offerors are advised that the SB Subcontracting Plan and the SB Participation Plan shall be incorporated into the contract. Performance against proposed goals in either plan may be reflected in contract performance assessment ratings, or liquidated damages –subcontracting plan pursuant to FAR clause at 52.219-16.

A prime contractor submitting an approved subcontracting plan under the “Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive SB Subcontracting Plans” in lieu of the SB Subcontracting Plan;

however, the SB Participation goal must meet or exceed the minimum mandatory total SB goal of 10 percent even if the SB Subcontracting Plan goals are lower.

MTSF4.2. Evaluation of Commitment

In performing the evaluation, the government will examine an offeror’s proposal for the extent of which SB concerns are specifically identified, the extent of commitment to use such firms, and the extent of their participation in terms of the total value of the acquisition. The government will evaluate the realism of the proposal to meet the proposed goals. Offerors are cautioned to consider the FAR clause at 52.219-16 regarding their SB participation plan.

Past Performance (MPP) Evaluation

MPP1. Past Performance General Information

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 price and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance. 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.

MPP1.1. Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

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.

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

For Official Use Only 8

MPP2. Past Performance Evaluation Process

MPP2.1 Past Performance Considerations

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 Factor 1, technical, and Factor 3, 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.

MPP2.1.1. 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.

MPP2.1.2. 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 Factor, 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)) 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.

The past performance information forms contained in 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, when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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

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

For Official Use Only 9

Somewhat Relevant

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

MPP2.1.3. Scope, Magnitude, and Complexity

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.

MPP2.1.3.1. Scope

For this effort, scope generally refers to, but not limited to, conducting logistics analyses on the following systems and their associated supply chain planning and execution processes: Secondary Item Requirements System (SIRS - D200A), Applications, Programs, and Indentures (API - D200F) system, Central Secondary Item Stratification (CSIS - D200N) system, Automated Budget Compilation System (ABCS - D075) and the Readiness Based Leveling (RBL – D035E) system. In addition, scope may refer to using a D200A emulation and simulation to perform logistics analyses or producing non-forecast based, optimized inventory levels for sporadic and highly variable demand items.

MPP2.1.3.2. Magnitude

Relevancy in regards to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to the number of lines of data used in conducting analyses and/or the number of National Item Identification Numbers (NIINs) used in conducting analyses.

MPP2.1.3.3. Complexity

Relevancy in regards to complexity may be based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the subfactor criteria.

MPP2.1.3.4 Price Assessment Relevancy

Relevancy in regard to 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 LADS requirement.

MPP2.1.4. Performance Quality Assessment

The government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the technical subfactors and price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting.

For Official Use Only 10

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of SB Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, SB Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

Past Performance Quality Assessment

Quality Assessment Definition

Satisfactory (S)

During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Marginal (M)

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)

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)

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

Unknown (UK) Unknown performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

MPP2.2. SB Past Performance

The government will evaluate the contractor's prior performance in meeting SB goals.

MPP2.3. Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned 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 recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of recent or relevant past

For Official Use Only 11 performance may be considered more advantageous to the government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more recent or relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less recent, less relevant or sparse and meaningless record of performance.

Price (MCP) Evaluation

MCP1. Price Evaluation General Instructions

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the TEP. The TEP is the sum of extended pricing for the base year plus the sum of extended pricing for the four option-years as stated in paragraph MCP2.1. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in section M.

Price proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L price instructions.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options.

Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and compliance. 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.

MCP1.0.1. Price Reasonableness Evaluation

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 any price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

FAR 15.403-3 allows the contracting officer to require data other than certified cost or price data if adequate information from sources other than the offeror cannot be obtained that is adequate to determine reasonable pricing. All documentation submitted to support reasonable pricing will be considered in making that determination.

MCP1.0.2. Price Balance Evaluation

Offeror’s 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 PCO if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

Unbalanced pricing pertains to CLIN and/or SubCLIN pricing variance and/or unexplained variance between periods of performance. 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 price to the government, even though it is the lowest priced offeror; or

For Official Use Only 12

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk to the government. The offeror may be rejected by the PCO if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government (FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

MCP1.0.3. Price Realism Evaluation

Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price realism. This pertains to CLIN and/or SubCLIN pricing as well as TEP. This evaluation is based on review of proposed pricing to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement to further ensure proposed pricing does not pose a risk to performance. Normally, price realism is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. Offerors are requested to address any proposed prices which reflect a business decision to offer prices at or below cost.

Unrealistic prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of adequate understanding of the requirement.

MCP2. Cost or Price Data Requirements Evaluation

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. The offeror may provide any additional data other than certified cost or price data as believed necessary to support or justify the 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.

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

MCP2.1. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Evaluation

The pricing proposal shall be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions. The TEP is the sum of extended pricing for the base year plus the sum of extended pricing for the four option-years as stated in Table MCP-1. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options.

Unit pricing per CLIN and/or SubCLIN as proposed in the RFP model contract, Part 1-The Schedule, Section B “Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs “will be used to develop the TEP.

Proposed unit prices shall be input into the electronic cost model, which automatically calculates the TEP. The unit prices input into the electronic cost model shall be consistent with Section B pricing.

For purposes of TEP calculation, see Table MCP-1 for information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods, such as Basic Period and Option Years. The quantities are used exclusively for evaluation purposes and do not obligate the government in any way to these quantities after contract award. Refer to Table MCP-1 for TEP methodology. Information provided in Table MCP-1 details the pricing methodology to be used in evaluation of proposed pricing. The quantities in Table MCP-1 are for informational purpose only and do not reflect the actual RFP quantities. Offerors shall propose to the quantities as stated in the RFP.

For Official Use Only 13

CLIN Description Quantity Unit of Issue Proposed Unit Price Proposed Extended Amount 0001 Regular/Recuring Reports 12 MO -$ 0002 Nonrecurring Reports-Labor Category

10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$

0003AA Travel-Tinker Round Trip 2 Each -$ 0003AB Travel-Wright Patterson Round Trip 2 Each -$ 0004 Data-CDRL 1 Lot NSP NSP

CLIN Description Quantity Unit of Issue Proposed Unit Price Proposed Extended Amount 1001 Regular/Recuring Reports 12 MO -$ 1002 Nonrecurring Reports-Labor Category

10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$

1003AA Travel- Tinker Round Trip 2 Each -$ 1003AB Travel- Wright Patterson Round Trip 2 Each -$ 1004 Data-CDRL 1 Lot NSP NSP

CLIN Description Quantity Unit of Issue Proposed Unit Price Proposed Extended Amount 2001 Regular/Recuring Reports 12 MO -$ 2002 Nonrecurring Reports-Labor Category

10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$

2003AA Travel- Tinker Round Trip 2 Each -$ 2003AB Travel- Wright Patterson Round Trip 2 Each -$ 2004 Data-CDRL 1 Lot NSP NSP

0Total Option II Ordering Period

Basic Ordering Period

Total Basic Ordering Period

Option I Ordering Period

Total Option I Ordering Period

Option II Ordering Period

For Official Use Only 14

MCP2.2. Pricing Particulars Evaluation

MCP2.2.1. Rounding Evaluation

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.

MCP2.2.2. Annual Price Changes Evaluation

Proposed pricing increases greater than 5 percent annually will be verified and addressed pertaining to reasonableness, balance, and realism.

MCP2.2.3. Subcontractors and Vendor Pricing Evaluation

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

MCP2.2.4. Specific Estimating Techniques and Methods Evaluation

CLIN Description Quantity Unit of Issue Proposed Unit Price Proposed Extended Amount 3001 Regular/Recuring Reports 12 MO -$ 3002 Nonrecurring Reports-Labor Category

10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$

3003AA Travel- Tinker Round Trip 2 Each -$ 3003AB Travel- Wright Patterson Round Trip 2 Each -$ 3004 Data-CDRL 1 Lot NSP NSP

CLIN Description Quantity Unit of Issue Proposed Unit Price Proposed Extended Amount 4001 Regular/Recuring Reports 12 MO -$ 4002 Nonrecurring Reports-Labor Category

10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$ 10 Hr -$

4003AA Travel- Tinker Round Trip 2 Each -$ 4003AB Travel- Wright Patterson Trip 2 Each -$ 4004 Data-CDRL 1 Lot NSP NSP

Option III Ordering Period

Total Option III Ordering Period

Option IV Ordering Period

Total Option IV Ordering Period

Total All Ordering Periods

For Official Use Only 15

The government will review the offeror’s basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based.

These methods should be reflected in and similar to offeror’s disclosure statement. Any deviations shall be noted and explained.

MCP2.2.5. Estimating System Evaluation

Evaluation of offeror’s 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 offeror’s standard practices regarding estimating utilized in proposed pricing will be reviewed.

MCP2.2.6. Purchasing System Evaluation

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

MCP2.2.7. Accounting System Evaluation

The status of offeror’s accounting system will be reviewed by the government. DCMA approval will be noted. Any deviation from offeror’s approved accounting system methodology will also be evaluated.

MCP2.2.8. Past Experience Basis of Estimate Evaluation

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

MCP2.2.9. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate / Management Decision Evaluation

The government shall review Section 1 of the Price Volume for offeror’s 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 offeror’s responsibility or put the government at performance risk will be evaluated.

MCP3. Price / Cost Models Evaluation

The proposed prices provided in the pricing matrix (electronic cost model) will be used to calculate the TEP. The TEP will be used to evaluate the proposals as specified under this factor. The offeror shall input proposed unit prices or wrap rates into the spreadsheet and extended pricing will be calculated based on estimated evaluation quantities provided by the government. Evaluation quantities provided are for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the government in any way.

MCP4. Supplies or Services and Prices / Costs (Section B) Evaluation

Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs (Section B) of the model contract should reflect pricing proposed in the Price Volume (including pricing proposed in the electronic cost model) used to develop the TEP. Ensure consistency between Section B proposed priced and proposed unit pieces in the Pricing Matrix (electronic cost model).