J85_M_PPT_Lite_28_Mar_2016.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal, and superior Past Performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

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

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 04 Mar 2011, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. 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. While there is no single vendor who is qualified on all National Stock Numbers (NSNs), the government anticipates that there will be one prime that will make use of some form of teaming arrangement with subcontractors.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency or is unacceptable. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the government's requirements is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4. Rejection of Offers

The government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.505. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.6. Discussions

The government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the FPR will be considered in making the Source Selection decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, offeror responses to ENs for Volume I (Technical), Volume III (Price), and Volume IV (Contract Documentation) must be incorporated in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make the offeror’s company ineligible for award. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.7. Reviews and Visits

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

1.8 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, to include approved Source Approval Request (SAR) packages for all NSNs, 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: Transition/Phase-In Subfactor 2: Supply Chain Management Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price).

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology:

The government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range. The government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will then assess the Past Performance ratings and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment as to which offeror provides the best value to the government.

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, and therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall Technical rating.

TABLE 1- TECHNICAL EVALUATION

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Transition/Phase-In

The government will assess the offeror’s proposed Transition/Phase-In approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, Instructions to Offerors (ITO). To be acceptable, the offeror’s approach must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, ensure minimal distruption of mission support throughout the contract transition and phase-in period, and ensure the offeror is fully operational by contract start date in accordance with PWS 1.8.1.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Supply Chain Management

The government will assess the offeror’s proposed Supply Chain Management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, the Instruction to Offerors (ITO). To be acceptable, the offeror’s approach must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, and ensure sufficient supportability of delivery requirements in accordance with PWS 1.7.3.

2.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.1. Ratings:

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments: (Also shown in Table 2 below).

TABLE 2- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

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

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

2.3.2. Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent Past Performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The government may consider Past Performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the offeror’s Past Performance.

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the Past Performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past 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 offerors (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)), as defined in paragraph 4.1.1 of 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. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Transition/Phase-In will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Transition/Phase-In on the proposed effort.

The Past Performance Information contained in the PPI Tool, as described in Attachment 1.1 of 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: (Also shown in Table 3 below).

TABLE 3- RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

RELEVANT

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

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

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

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the J85 MISTR overhaul requirement. Consideration may be given to the following engine types (in order of greater relevancy to least relevancy) when determining Past Performance:

1. Turbojet engines

2. Air breathing gas turbine engines

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 engines/components repaired 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 proposed technical subfactors. Consideration may also be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to complexity:

1. Level of maintenance performed (e.g. whole engines with all components, major modules, individual components)

2. Level of logistics and supply chain support

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 J85 MISTR requirement.

2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment:

The government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the Past Performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as Past Performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4- PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENTS

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.

2.3.3. Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.3.1 above. The rating is not based on a qualitive analysis. Although the Past Performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

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

2.4. Factor 3 – Price

This is not a commercial effort; FAR Part 15 applies. Price proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness, balanced pricing, price realism, and the total evaluated price (TEP). An offeror whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, unbalanced, or unrealistic will not be considered for award.

The government shall evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable offerors, including option prices. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.4.6.2 The offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in RFP Attachment 2, Pricing Matrix. NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the government to exercise such options or extensions

2.4.1. 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 price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. Proposals will also be evaluated for completeness.

2.4.2. Balanced Pricing Evaluation

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 Evaluation

Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price realism. This should not be confused with cost realism. Price realism pertains to Contract Line Item (CLIN) 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. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. Offeror’s are requested to address any proposed prices which reflect a business decision to offer prices at or below cost. To evaluate price realism, the government may use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. The government may also use other evaluation techniques as needed.

2.4.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offeror’s may provide any additional data other than certified cost or price data as believed necessary to support or justify proposed pricing. If requested by the Contracting Officer, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism. 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.

2.4.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of all CLINS of the offeror proposed prices for one (1) three-year base period, two (2) one-year options, and one (1) six-month extension in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend the Term of the Contract.” The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the government to exercise such options or extensions. The six-month Extension Period is not to be considered part of Option Period two (2) [the last option period] and will be a separate option exercised if it is utilized. The six-month Extension Period unit prices will be based on the proposed Option Period two (2) unit prices. The six-month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary.

Unit pricing per CLIN as proposed in the Request for Proposal (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.

2.4.5.1. Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs (Section B) of the model contract should reflect pricing proposed in the Cost/Price Volume (including pricing proposed in the Pricing Matrix) used to develop the TEP. 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.

2.4.5.2. For purposes of TEP calculation, the Best Estimated Quantities (Table 5) provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods, such as the Basic Period and Option Periods. The Extension Period unit pricing shall be based on the last Option Period unit prices. The Pricing Matrix will automatically fill in 6-month extension period prices from the last Option Periods prices input in RFP Attachment 2 (Pricing Matrix). Extended Prices per CLIN will be based on unit prices multiplied by the government provided best estimated quantities, estimated dollar, or estimated hours.

2.4.6. Information provided below demonstrates the general CLIN structure of the requirements and explains details regarding instruction of submitting proposed pricing. Explanation of proposed pricing evaluation methodology is provided below. To develop the TEP for the contract, CLINs X001 through X078 will be proposed for evaluation and subsequent award purposes as follows:

2.4.6.1. CLIN Structure:

The evaluated TEP is based on evaluation of proposed unit pricing multiplied by the Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs) provided in Table 5. Note that evaluation CLIN quantities provided below does not in any way reflect or guarantee contract quantities after award. Calculation methodology is provided in Table 6. Pricing will be based on TEP evaluation that includes review for price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism. All supporting documentation provided in the Cost/Price Volume will also be considered as part of price evaluation.

Table 5 – CLIN/QTY

2.4.6.2. Calculation Methodology by CLIN

Information provided below demonstrates the general CLIN structure of the requirements and explains instruction details for submission of proposed pricing. An explanation of proposed pricing evaluation methodology is provided below.

TABLE 6 – Calculation Methodology

2.4.7. 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.

2.4.8. Purchasing System

Purchasing systems will be reviewed and DCMA approval will be noted. Any deviation from approved accounting system methodology will also be reviewed.

2.4.9. Accounting System

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

2.4.10. Over & Above (O&A)

The government will review pricing proposed as ceiling rates (hourly labor wrap rates) for O&A and material handling rates for O&A as required in Section 2 of the Price Volume.

The government will review proposed ceiling wrap rates to ensure reasonableness, balance, and realism. All ceiling wrap rates—whether labor or material shall be fully burdened (loaded) as composite wrap rates representing a composite of prime and subcontractor(s) rates as applicable.

2.4.11. Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques & Methods 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 the offeror’s disclosure statement. Any deviations shall be noted and explained.

2.4.12. Past Experience Basis of Estimates

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

2.4.13. Proposed Price or Cost Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The government will review the Price Volume for all offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. This includes review of the areas of price reduction, such as profit, volume or location discounts, indirect rate reductions and so forth. Also, offeror’s explanation of how such reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the government at performance risk will be evaluated.

2.4.14. Subcontractor/Vendor Pricing

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

2.4.15. Rounding

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

2.4.16. Annual Price Changes

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

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

2.4.18. Government Furnished Property (GFP)

The government will review all assumptions provided in the Price Volume regarding GFP.

2.4.19. Services Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)

The government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to verify each offeror’s requirement to demonstrate compliance with the SCLS. Compliance with the SCLS is the responsibility of the offeror and subsequent contract awardee. Offerors’ demonstration of their understanding of SCLS as applicable for SCLA-covered positions will be reviewed. It should be noted that actual compliance of offerors’ wage rate payments to employees with the SCLS and regional Area Wage Determination (AWD) as appropriate is not within the responsibility or purview of evaluators and shall not be reviewed. The Department of Labor (DoL) is assigned SCLS compliance responsibilities and shall be the government Point of Contact (POC) in regard to any compliance questions or concerns. Information submitted regarding any Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) applicable to this acquisition will also be reviewed.

2.4.20. Government Field Support Agencies

The government will review and confirm submission of the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) offices responsible for administration of the offeror’s government contracts.

2.4.21. Other Documentation Review

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified cost or pricing data as believed necessary to support, justify or clarify their proposed pricing. All information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.