DRAFT_52.212-2_Addendum_REVISED.pdf

ATTACHMENT 5 – 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 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 Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, 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 up to four contractors for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as a 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 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

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 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 Statement of Work (SOW) 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.

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: Contractor Qualifications Subfactor 2: ITA Development and Support

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 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. 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.

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 One: Contractor Qualifications

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Contractor Qualifications 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 elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. General Requirements Plan. The General Requirements Plan must ensure the offeror can successfully design and manufacture an Interface Test Adapter (ITA) IAW SOW 3.1.2.2, and assess UUTs at offeror and Government locations IAW SOW 3.1.4.

b. Quality Certification. To be acceptable, the offeror must possess an ISO 9001:2008 certificate, or an equivalent certificate IAW SOW 3.1.12.

c. Specific Requirements. The Specific Requirements Plan must ensure the offeror can successfully mark and label ITAs IAW SOW 3.2.1.1. Also, the proposed Preliminary Design Review must meet requirements of SOW 3.2.1.2.2, and the proposed Critical Design Review must meet requirements of SOW 3.2.1.2.3.

2.2.2. Subfactor Two: ITA Development and Support

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

a. Design Development. The offeror’s approach must ensure SOW paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.7, 3.1.2.1, 3.1.9, and 3.2.1.2.1 are met.

b. Manufacturing and Acceptance Test. The offeror’s approach to design and deliver a full scale working model ITA prototype must ensure SOW 3.2.1.3.1 is met. Also, the offeror’s ITA acceptance test approach must ensure SOW paragraphs 3.2.1.4.1, 3.2.1.4.2, and 3.2.1.4.3 are met.

c. Technical Orders and Provisioning. The offeror’s approach must ensure SOW paragraphs SOW 3.2.5.1.1, 3.2.5.1.2, 3.2.5.1.3, 3.2.5.2, 3.2.5.3.1, 3.2.5.3.2.1, and

3.2.5.4 are met.

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:

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

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.

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.

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 Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)), as definded in paragraph 4.3 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) 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 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 3.1.3.1, 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 Enterprise Interface Test Adapter and Related Test Equipment requirement. Consideration may be given to the following ITA design and manufacture (in order of greater relevancy to least relevancy) when determining past performance:

1. Air Force ITA Contracts

2. Department of Defense (other than Air Force) ITA Contracts

3. Commercial ITA Contracts

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

1. Number of components and connections in the design (e.g. whole engines with all components, major modules, individual components)

2. Level of Support

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 ITAs designed and manufactured 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.

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 Enterprise ITA and Related Test Equipment 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)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)

(PURPLE)

During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

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) During the contract period, contractor performance is

(YELLOW) 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. 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

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all offerors that are found technically acceptable. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP. The evaluation quantites reflect Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs) based on historical data and future projected requirements. However, these quantity estimates are solely for evaluation of proposed pricing and do not represent actual contract quantities after contract award. The Government shall not be held in any way to these evaluation quantities during contract performance. 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. The TEP tab of the ITA Pricing Matrix automatically calculated the TEP based on prices provided by the offeror multiplies by the BEQ provided by the Government. .

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable offerors.

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) price realism, (4) unbalanced pricing, and (5) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award.

Additionally, an offeror’s price my be rejected, if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.4.6 below. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable Offerors. . The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in Attachment XX, ITA Pricing Matrix.

2.4.1. Completeness

Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and compliance. Offerors shall complete the ITA Pricing Matrix, Attachment TBD. This includes five (5) one year periods. Any omission of required pricing may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. Offerors must ensure all required proposed pricing is provided in the matrix. All periods of performance must be priced, an incomplete ITA Pricing Matrix will be considered unreasonable since pricing completeness is part of the price reasonableness criteria.

2.4.2. Price Reasonableness and Balance

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.

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. Balanced pricing is determined with respect to separately priced CLINs or SubCLINs or significant unexplained variance within one CLIN’s pricing from year to year. 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

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, and must ensure the price does not pose a risk to performance. Unrealistic prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of adequate understanding of the requirement or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. To evaluate price realism, the Government may use one or more of the 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 Cost and Pricing Data

FAR 12.209 gives the requirement to establish price reasonableness in accordance with 13.106-3 (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), 14.408-2 (Sealed Bidding), or 15.4 (Contract Pricing by Negotiation), as applicable. FAR part 15 applies. In accordance with FAR 15.403-3-1(b), prices based on adequate price competition do not require submission of cost or pricing data. In accordance with FAR 15.403-3(a), however, information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. FAR 15.403-3(a)(1) provides for obtaining information other than cost or pricing data if needed to determine price reasonableness. Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining other than cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain data as appropriate.

Should the CO determine proposed prices to appear unreasonable or the possibility that an Offeror does not fully understand the requirement, the Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via other than cost or pricing data. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit cost or pricing data.

2.4.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of prices provided in the ITA Pricing Matrix, Attachment TBD. The ITA Pricing Matrix spreadsheet will calculate the offeror’s TEP which is used as the basis for proposed pricing. Proposed unit prices will be input into the spreadsheet by offerors and extended pricing will be calculated based on estimated evaluation quantities provided by the Government. Evaluation quantities in the tables below are for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government in any way.

The offeror’s pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Addendum to 52.212-1, ITO pricing instructions. Proposed pricing shall be provided in the Pricing Matrix cells designated for proposed unit prices per CLIN/SubCLIN. Unit prices for all performance periods shall be provided in the Pricing Matrix spreadsheet. Spreadsheet formulas will calculate extended evaluated pricing based on multiplication of unit prices by evaluation quantities estimated by the Government. Extended pricing for all years of contract performance will be summed to yield total evaluated pricing for each CLIN. All years of performance will be included in the TEP.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Similarly, quantities used in the pricing matrix are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent future purchase quantities or obligate the Government whatsoever.

2.4.6 Rounding

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. The ITA Pricing Matrix format provides for decimal places that shall be IAW the required decimal format. Compliance with Pricing Matrix instructions is mandatory.

2.4.7 Other Documentation

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 reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing.

2.4.8 Submission of Price Matrix

Submit the electronically encoded Pricing Matrix in support of the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is mandatory. Pricing Matrix proposed pricing submitted must be consistent with your approved estimating system and must duplicate the logic and mathematical formulas reflected in the paper copy of your proposal. The Pricing Matrix submitted must comply with the following format requirements:

(a) A Data file should be submitted on a CD.

(b) Data file should be .XLS file format (MS-Excel 2010 or earlier) compatible format.