Addendum_to_FAR_52_212-2_Evaluation_Factors_26Apr18.pdf

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52-212.2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

25 April 2018

1.1. SOURCE SELECTION (SS)

1.2. 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. Tradeoff considerations 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 (IAW) the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.2.1 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.

1.2.2 This source selection is conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Addendum FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors; Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors , as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 31 Mar 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) hosted FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.3. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one or up to five contractors for award. 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.

1.4. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any technical proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency. If a deficiency is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet Government requirements requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. The Government also reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from the competitive range where the technical proposal does not require a major proposal revision, but the offeror is not among the most highly rated http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ offerors.

1.5. 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.

1.6. Competitive Range Determination

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

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition 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), or 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.

1.7. 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, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if offerors will be required to include EN responses in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions.

1.8. Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned. However, the SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information. Site visits may be conducted to evaluate the quality 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.

1.9 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award. In the case that a discrepancy exists between Addendum 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Addendum 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Addendum 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

2.1. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.2. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.2.1. 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 Sub factor 1: Schedule and Wash Effectiveness Sub factor 2: Environmental Factors Sub factor 3: Procedures

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.2.2. 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 approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).

2.2.3. 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 2.2.4 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2.4 2.3Factor 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 single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, be considered 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 ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.4.1 2.3.1Subfactor 1: Schedule and Wash Effectiveness The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach with effectively scheduling and washing the engine core. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. To be acceptable, the Offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. The approach must ensure the offeror can successfully support no less than two locations in each region simultaneously regardless of engine type IAW PWS 1.2.1 and 1.3.1.1.

b. The approach must ensure the requirements of PWS 1.4 and 1.1.1 are met.

c. The approach must ensure the requirements of PWS 1.1.1.5 are met.

2.2.4.2 2.3.2Subfactor 2: Environmental Factors The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Environmental approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. To be acceptable, the Offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. The approach for collecting and disposing water wash effluent must ensure compliance with all federal, state and local environmental laws IAW PWS para 1.1.1.2 and 1.6.1.2.

2.2.4.3. 2.3.3Subfactor 3: Procedures The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed procedures. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. To be acceptable, the Offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. The approach must ensure the contractor can successfully complete all wash events safely without damage to government equipment and/ or personnel IAW PWS para 1.3.3.2.and 1.6.2.2.

b. The offeror’s approach for Consolidated Took Kit procedures must ensure all tools required for engine water wash are accounted for prior to and at end of each wash event IAW PWS para. 1.5.1.2.

2.3 2.4Factor 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 2.4.1Ratings The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures

TABLE 2

Adjectival 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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to

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 2.4.2Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services relevant to the requirements in the solicitation. 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 2.4.2.1Recency 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 2.4.2.2Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)), as defined in paragraph 4.3.1 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Subfactor 1 Schedule and Wash Effectiveness will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform work within Subfactor 1 Schedule and Wash Effectiveness on the proposed effort.

The past performance information forms contained in Attachment 1.1 of FAR 52.212- 1 Addendum, and information obtained from other sources, will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures as depicted in Table 3, below:

TABLE 3

RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

RATINGS

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT (VR)

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

RELEVANT

(R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

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

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

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the water wash requirement.

Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to scope:

a. Provide Ability for Direct Core Engine Water Wash

b. Schedule/Reschedule Engine Water Wash Events

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 Water Wash requirements. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regards to magnitude:

a. Aircraft/Engine Type(s) Supported

b. Regions/Location Supported

c. Number of Aircraft/Engines Supported Quarterly/Annually

d. Total Dollar Value

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the technical subfactors.

Price: Relevancy in regard to price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract types Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) of previous effort as compared to the Water Wash requirement.

2.3.2.3. 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.

TABLE 4

QUALITY ASSESSMENT

RATINGS

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY

(S)(GREEN)

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

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N)

(WHITE)

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

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

2.3.3. 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 Table 2 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 a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Satisfactory or Limited Confidence, may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4. 2 . 5 Factor 3 –Price Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness),

(2) price realism, (3) balanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). All information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of reasonable, balanced, and realistic pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Unreasonable or unrealistic proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all Offerors, including option prices. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP. The TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment D). These calculations will include all evaluation periods, to include the Basic Period of four years, three one-year Option Periods and the six month Extension Period. The Extension Period is in accordance with Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. 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.

2.4.1. 2.5.1 Price Reasonableness The proposed prices will be evaluated for price reasonableness to include completeness. 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.

2.4.2. 2.5.2 Price Realism Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, an adequate comprehension of the complexity and risks of the program, and must ensure the price does not pose a risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government 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.

2.4.3. 2.5.3 Balanced Pricing Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated 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 (CO) 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 TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a. There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

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

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

2.4.4. 2.5.4 Data Other than Certified Pricing Data If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of price reasonableness, balance, and/or price realism. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of price reasonableness and/or realistic pricing and/or balanced pricing.

2.4.5. 2.5.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 pricing instructions. Table 5 below will demonstrate the TEP calculation methodology.

Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format.

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

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

Based on the Offerors proposed pricing for the Option Year 3 pricing, the spreadsheet automatically applies the Option Year 3 pricing as input in the spreadsheet for the six

(6) month extension. Extended Prices per CLIN will be based on the calculation methodology described in Table 5 below.

Information provided in Table 5 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 X005 will be proposed for evaluation and subsequent award purposes as shown in Table 5 below.

2.4.6 2.5.6 Pricing Matrix The prices in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment D) shall reflect pricing proposed in the price/cost model in the price volume. Should discrepancies exist in unit prices between the hard copy of the Pricing Matrix and any electronic copy of the price/cost model and/or Pricing Matrix or hard copy of the price/cost model, the hard copy of the Pricing Matrix will be used for the TEP.

TABLE 5

CLIN TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE METHODOLOGY

WATER WASH CLINs CLIN Basic & Option Period(s) Calculation Methodology

X001 WEST REGION

X001AA F108-108 (KC-135) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity X001AB TF33-103 (B-52) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity

X001AC On Site Cancellation of Scheduled Washes

The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity

X002 CENTRAL REGION .

X002AA F108-100 (KC-135) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity X002AB F108-201 (RC/TC-135) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity

X002AC TF33-100A (E-3) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity X002AD TF33-5/9 (OC/WC-135) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity

X002AE On Site Cancellation of Scheduled Washes

The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity

X003 MIDWEST REGION

X003AA F108-100 (KC-135) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity X003AB On Site Cancellation of Scheduled

Washes The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity

X004 SOUTHEAST REGION

X004AA F108-100 (KC-135) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity

X004AB TF33-103 (B-52) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity X004AC TF33-102C (E-8) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity

X004AD F138-100 (C-5M) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity X004AE On Site Cancellation of Scheduled

Washes The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity

X005 NORTHEAST REGION

X005AA F108-100 (KC-135) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity

X005AB F138-100 (C-5M) The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity X005AC On Site Cancellation of Scheduled

Washes The product of each subCLIN’s proposed unit price for an event multiplied by the best estimated quantity

X006 Data and Reports Not Separately Priced

The X in the CLIN structure will begin with 0 thru 3 for the basic years and then 4, 5 and 6 for each option year.

2.4.7 2.5.7Rounding All proposed dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest penny. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP. Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

2.4.8 2.5.8Government Furnished Property / Contractor Furnished Property The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume to verify each offeror’s compliance with Addendum 52.212-1, ITO, paragraphs 5.3.7 and 5.3.8, pertaining to Offerors’ understanding of items (including property, equipment, material, and facilities) provided by the Government and/or provided by the Contractor.

2.4.9 2.5.9Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government shall review the Price Volume for all Offeror’s 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 Offeror’s explanation of how such reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at performance risk will be evaluated..

2.4.10 2.5.10Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding price assumptions/limitations/qualifications 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.

2.4.11 2.5.11Government Field Support Agencies The Government will review the Price Volume 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.

2.4.12 2.5.12Pre-Award Survey The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.4.13 2.5.13Annual Price Changes Proposed pricing increases greater than 5% annually will be verified and addressed pertaining to price reasonableness and balanced pricing.

2.4.14 2.5.14Services Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) The Offeror’s proposal will be reviewed for compliance with SCLS. Compliance with the SCLS is the responsibility of the Offeror and subsequent contract awardee. In addition, the Government will review and confirm the Offeror submitted a conformance table that cross references the Offeror’s proposed job categories/skill levels subject to the SCLS. 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.

2.4.15 2.5.15Subcontractor/Vendor Pricing The Government will review the Price Volume regarding information pertaining to subcontractor and/or vendor pricing. Offerors’ determination of fair and reasonable pricing as it relates to subcontractors will be reviewed. Evaluation of subcontractor teaming agreements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair and reasonable. However, subcontractor pricing per se will not be evaluated. The Government will review Offerors’ application of their (prime’s) indirect costs, including G&A, Cost of Money (COM), and profit to subcontractor costs/pricing.

Proposed FFP pricing has associated risk to the Offeror – not the Government - with regard to adequately and sufficiently covering costs in contract out-years; this risk also applies to Offerors’ subcontractor pricing. Proposals shall be adequately and sufficiently priced to take into account future unknowns, such as fluctuations in contract out-year subcontractor pricing as well as potential changes in subcontractors.

2.5 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 pricing information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of price reasonableness, price realism, and balanced pricing.

3.1 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

3.2 Model Contract/Representations and Certifications

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

3.3 3.1.1Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors The Government will review the offeror’s annual representations and certification electronically via the system for award management (SAM) at www.sam.gov. Any missing information, or incorrect data entered as requested above (physically or electronic) may render a proposal non-responsive and ineligible for award.

http://www.sam.gov/

ATTACHMENT 5 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ATTACHMENT 1.0

ACRONYMS

AF Air Force AFFARS Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement CAS Cost Accounting System CBA Collective Bargaining Agreement CDRL Contract Data Requirements List CLIN Contract Line Item Number CPARS Contractor Performance Assessment Reports DCAA Defense Contract Audit Agency DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement DoD Department of Defense EN Evaluation Notice FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation FFP Firm-Fixed Price FPR Final Proposal Revision IAW In Accordance With ITO Instruction to Offerors PPIRS Past Performance Information Retrieval System PWS Performance Work Statement COMBS Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply SCA Service Contract Labor Standards SS Source Selection SSA Source Selection Authority SSEB Source Selection Evaluation Board T&M Time and Materials TEP Total Evaluated Price