Addendum_to_Clause_52_212-2_(Rev_16Jan14)_(2).pdf

ATTACHMENT 2 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

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

Tradeoffs will be made only between 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 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, superior past performance of the higher priced technically acceptable offer outweighs the price difference.

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

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “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 complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement is impractical, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4. Rejection of Offers

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

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. 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 your company ineligible for award. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.7. Reviews 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, 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 Addendum to Clause 52.212-1- Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Addendum to Clause 52.212-2-Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Addendum to Clause 52.212-2-Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Resource Management Subfactor 2: Program Management Subfactor 3: Common Use Item List

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. Cost/Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. The SSA will then assess the Past Performance ratings and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not be receive a separate rating; it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall Technical rating.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Resource Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Resource Management approach.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. The proposed manpower approach and organizational chart shall meet the requirements of PWS paragraphs 1.2, 1.3.1, 1.3.2 and 1.7.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Program Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Program Management approach.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements by substantiating all the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a) A program management plan which ensures support of the entire scope of the effort is met in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.3 through 1.6.9.

b) An approach that demonstrates proficiency in using Automated Point of Use

Devices to include software and equipment which ensure the requirements of PWS paragraphs 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, and 1.6.4 are met.

c) An approach to identify areas where efficiencies can be improved and programs can be implemented to reduce costs and increase performance which ensures the requirements of PWS paragraph 1.4.1 are met.

d) An approach to manage and implement a quality control pogram which ensures sufficient quality control throughout the life of the contract in accordance with PWS para 1.7.3.

e) An approach to manage and accomplish transition and phase-in, which ensures a seamless 30 calendar day transition in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.10.1.

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Common Use Item List

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Common Use Item List approach.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements by substantiating all the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a) The proposed data in the Common Use Item List (CUIL) shall be provided without changing the format of the CUIL. It is important to note the CUIL contains a total of 5,924 exhibit line items (ELINs), 5,642 under the common use item tab and 282 under the brand name specific tab. An approach to provide vendor agreements which ensures the requirements of PWS paragraph 1.2 are met.

b) A proposed substitution to the CUIL shall be specified in the separately tabbed substitution list and shall include all sufficient technical information to substantiate any proposed substitutions. Any proposed substitutions must meet the specifications of the orginal item on the CUIL. If the proposed substitution does not meet specifications of the orginal item, the offeror shall be determined to be technically unacceptable.

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 2.3.1., Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments:

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

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

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

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

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.

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

2.3.2. Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the offeror’s past performance.

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2. Relevancy Assessment:

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)), as definded in paragraph 4.3 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual

NO CONFIDENCE

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

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(Neutral)

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

contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information forms contained in Attachment 2 of FAR 52.212-1 Addendum and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 2.3.2.2., Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

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

RELEVANT

(R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

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

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

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the OC-ALC Material Support Integrator requirement. Material Support Integration is comprehensive program management of the OC-ALC inventory management systems to include approximately 8500 items. Material Support Integration includes all labor, supervision, materials, tools, equipment, PPE, interim storage, transportation and incidentals. Automated Point of Use (POU) machines are utilized by the OC-ALC to issue PPE and common use items such as drill bits, reamers, cutting tools, abrasives, common construction material in support of the maintenance, repair and overhaul of aircraft, engines, commodities and production related equipment. Automated Point of Use Databases are used to track and update the usage of items contained within the various POU devices. OC-ALC support includes up to 27 buildings, 20 non-automated storage areas or cribs and 207 automated POU locations containing trays or bins for dispensation of materials.

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 OC-ALC Material Support Integrator requirement in terms of types of items managed, personnel skill type/level, location/area supported, and contract type/value. Generally, efforts of less than $1,000,000 will not be considered relevant unless such efforts, when combined, comprise a significant amount of work. (Example: multiple MSI efforts under $1,000,000 on a large Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

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 OC-ALC Material Support Integrator requirement in terms of number of buildings, cribs and POU devices supported, value/quantities of items managed, and application of items managed (i.e. items related to the support of the maintenance, repair and overhaul of aircraft, engines, commodities and production related equipment).

Note: Scope, Magnitude and Complexity will be assessed based on the prime or team members proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort.

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 OC- ALC Material Support Integrator 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:

Quality Assessment Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

(BLUE)

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Governments benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG)

(PURPLE)

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Governments benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

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

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

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

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

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

UNKNOWN (UK)

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

2.3.3. 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 qualitative 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 – Cost/Price

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, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.4.4 and Table 1 below. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this section. 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 Government shall evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable Offerors. This TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided below.

These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the Phase-In Period, the Basic Period, all Option Periods, and the 180-day Extension Period. The Extension Period is in accordance with Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in Exhibit 1, Common Use Item List.

2.4.1 Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

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

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

2.4.2. Unbalanced pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

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

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

2.4.3. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

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

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Evaluation Criteria pricing instructions. Table1 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 calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for thirty (30) day Phase-in Period, Eleven (11)-month Base Period, four(4) one-year Option Periods and one six (6) Month Extension Period in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”.

The six (6) Month Extension Period unit prices will be based on the proposed Option Period four(4) unit prices. The 6 (six) Month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The 6 (six) Month Extension Period is not to be considered part of Option four (4)—[the last option period] Period and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.

2.4.4.1. 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 CUIL, Exhibit 1) 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.

2.4.4.2. For purposes of TEP calculation, the Estimated Quantities (BEQ) for each item is included in the CUIL and provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods, such as Phase-In, the Basic Period and Option Periods. If an Extension Period of a few months is also required, that pricing shall be based on the last Option Period unit prices. Extended Pricies per CLIN will be based on unit prices multiplied by the government provided estimated quantities.

2.4.4.3. 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 locationed in Table 1 below.

To develop the TEP for the contract, CLINs 0001 through 5002 will be proposed for evaluation and subsequent award purposes as follows:

2.4.5 CLIN/SubCLIN Structure:

The evaluated TEP is based on evaluation of proposed unit pricing multiplied by the BEQs provided in Table 2. Calculation methodology is provided in Table 1. Pricing will be based on TEP evaluation that includes review for price reasonableness and balance.

All supporting documentation provided in the Cost/Price Volume will also be considered as part of price evaluation. The six month extension evaluated prices will be based on the proposed Option Year Four unit pricing. The six month extension period is included as proposed CLINs 5001 and 5002 in the RFP; however is being included in the calculated TEP for evaluation purposes only.

TABLE 1

X001 Common Use Item Price List: The total prices proposed on the POU Common

Use Item Price List on the “Common Use Items” tab and “Brand Name Only” tab for Basic Year One will be summed to provide the total proposed price for Basic Period One, CLIN 0001.

For Option Year One, the total prices proposed on the POU Common Use Item Price List on the “Common Use Items” tab and “Brand Name Only” tab for Option Year One will be summed to provide the total proposed price for Option Year One, CLIN 1001.

For Option Year Two, the total prices proposed on the POU Common Use Item Price List on the “Common Use Items” tab and “Brand Name Only” tab for Option Year Two will be summed to provide the total proposed price for Option Year Two, CLIN 2001.

For Option Year Three, the total prices proposed on the POU Common Use Item Price List on the “Common Use Items” tab and “Brand Name Only” tab for OptionYear Three will be summed to provide the total proposed price for Option Year Three, CLIN 3001.

For Option Year Four, the total prices proposed on the POU Common Use Item Price List on the “Common Use Items” tab and “Brand Name Only” tab for Option Year Four will be summed to provide the total proposed price for Option Year Four, CLIN 4001.

For 6 (six) Month Extension Period, the total prices proposed on the POU Common Use Item Price List on the “Common Use Items” tab and “Brand Name

Only” tab for Option Year Four will be summed to provide the total proposed price for 6 Month Extension Period, CLIN 5001.

The six total proposed prices, resulting from the calculation method described above, will be summed to provide the TEP for the Common Use Items List.

X002 MSI Inventory Management Price List: Please note: The TEP for the MSI Inventory

Management Price List will be used for evaluation purposes only. The Government cannot guarantee the rate at which new locations will be added to the contract.

TEP for MSI Inventory Management will be calculated using the proposed prices on the MSI Inventory Management Price List spreadsheet as follows:

The Basic Year monthly proposed prices for Categories A, B, C, and D will be multiplied by 3. The sum of these prices will result in the TEP for the Basic Period, CLIN 0002.

The Option Year One monthly proposed prices for Categories C, D, E, and F will be multiplied by 3. The sum of these prices will result in the TEP for Option Year One, CLIN 1002.

The Option Year Two monthly proposed prices for Categories E, F, G, and H will be multiplied by 3. The sum of these prices will result in the TEP for Option Year Two, CLIN 2002.

The Option Year Three monthly proposed prices for Categories G, H, I, and J will be multiplied by 3. The sum of these prices will result in the TEP for Option Year Three, CLIN 3002.

The Option Year Four monthly proposed prices for Categories I, J, K, and L will be multiplied by 3. The sum of these prices will result in the TEP for Option Year Four, CLIN 4002.

The 6 (six) Month Extension Period will be calculated by multiplying CLIN 4002 by 50%. This price will reflect the TEP for 6 Month Extension Period, CLIN 5002.

The six evaluated prices, resulting from the calculation method described above, will be summed to provide the TEP for MSI Inventory Management.

X003 Data Requirements: Not Seperatley Price (NSP)

0004 Phase-in

Proposed unit price to equal evaluated total. Evaluated total for Phase-in equals total for CLIN 0004.

The Final TEP will be calculated by summing the results of the TEP calculation for CLIN X001 and CLIN X002 plus the proposed price for CLIN 0004, Phase In.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.4.6 Rounding

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

2.4.7 Government Furnished versus Contractor Furnished Assumptions The Government will review Section 2 of the Price Volume to verify each offeror’s compliance with Section L regarding assumptions based on information provided in the solicitation pertaining to items furnished by the Government versus items expected to be provided by offerors.

2.4.8 Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government shall review Section 1 of 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 by reviewers.

2.4.9 Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques & Methods The Government will review your basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based.

2.4.10 Cost Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in Section 2 of the Price Volume regarding cost assumptions utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand the offeror’s proposed pricing basis of estimate.

Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of reasonable and balanced pricing.

2.4.11 Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to check compliance with

Section L requirement to identify the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and DCMA office.

2.4.12 Pre-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 Other Documentation Review

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified pricing data as believed necessary to support, justify or clarify their proposal.