Attach_13_Section_M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Contract Award through Source Selection

1.1 Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS

215.300 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR website, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements, affordably in a way that will be advantageous 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 technical superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one contractor for this effort; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis to determine whether an offeror’s proposed prices are realistic for the work to be performed. The Government may reject any proposal that may be evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal may be deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business Participation, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section 2.0 below.

1.5 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The Government intends to maintain a competitive environment by encouraging the use of open teaming arrangements and encouraging offerors to support access to Government-furnished property (GFP) and GFP related capabilities residing in contractor laboratories to help eliminate, to the maximum practical extent, any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP. The Government will implement a No Exclusive Teaming Arrangements H Clause to prohibit exclusive teaming arrangements to help alleviate co-use issues with GFP known to be encumbered on current efforts.

1.6 Discussions:

The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right, if it is determined to be in its best interest, to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (EN) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal remains in the competitive range at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award or may affect the offeror’s ratings.

2.0 Factors and Subfactors used for Evaluation:

A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor I: Technical

Subfactor One: Technical Expertise

Subfactor Two: Transition

Subfactor Three: Program Management

Factor II. Cost/Price

2.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

IAW FAR 15.304(e), the Technical factor, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, when combined are significantly more important, than cost/price. However, cost/price will contribute to the selection decision. Within Factor I, subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

2.2 Technical:

The evaluation of the technical proposal provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the evaluation of each Technical subfactor. The Technical Rating includes consideration for:

Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (See FAR 15.001)

The separate Technical Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal weaknesses.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001)

The government will evaluate offeror’s approaches and capabilities explanation and how they will use their approaches and capabilities to accomplish/satisfy requirements, and not merely restate requirements. The government will also evaluate how BOE’s support the offeror’s technical approach.

2.3 Technical Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Technical Ratings:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2.4 Technical Risk Rating: Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive a Technical Risk rating (in addition to the color adjectival rating) described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2.5 Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

2.5.1 Volume I – General Information

Evaluation of this section is used as a tool to verify offeror’s proposal adheres to Government’s RFP and section L.

This will also be used to identify changes/reveisions (if needed) for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR), through evaluation notices (EN). As this is a summary and tool, no evaluation will be performed of Volume I.

2.5.1.1. Cross Reference Matrix: The Cross Reference Matrix, Section J, Attachment 9 will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents, Performance

Work Statement (PWS), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award). The Cross Reference Matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

2.5.2 Volume II, Technical Volume

Each offeror’s written technical proposal, including Basis of Estimates (BOE’s) and responses for each awardable task order, shall have a technical evaluatation performed to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. Each task order BOE will not be graded for color adjectival ratings, unless specifically described below. Offerors proposal may be determined unacceptable if BOE’s do not fully meet the requirements of the PWS.

2.5.2.1 Subfactor One: Technical Expertise: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s approach to recruit and retain technical expertise for the 18 year life of the contract.

2.5.2.1.1 Program Managerment Plan (PMP). As part of this subfactor the following sections of the PMP will be evaluated for adequacy:

2.5.2.1.1.1 Subject Matter Expertise (SME): The Government will review the offeror’s descripton of its SME employed by the offeror at time of the proposal submission, including number of years of experience and any professional certifications, to evaluate the offeror’s level of expertise in the requirement of the PWS.

2.5.2.1.1.2 Additionally, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Technical Expertise for the following awardable task orders:

2.5.2.1.1.3 ICBM Operational Software Sustainment Program (IOSSP): The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the following IOSSP software programs including but not limited to: programming language, familiarity with the program/code, software line of codes, and provide a description of the processor:

Program Language SLOC Processor

OGP ADA 30 K MGS (MIL-STD-1750A)

OFP ADA 6 K MGS (MIL-STD-1750A)

COP ADA, C & Assembly 85 K Vax SMC-810 MOTP FORTRAN 25 K Vax SMC-810 STSS FORTRAN 58 K Vax 3185 MPE Adobe Flex/Actionscript 11 K NCS Computer XPQ-3140 (Win 7)

2.5.2.1.1.4 Higher Authority Communications/Rapid Message Processing Element (HAC/RMPE):

The Government will evaluate offeror’s experience working on HAC/RMPE system (or similar systems)

2.5.2.1.1.4.1 The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s knowledge of the required hardware and firmware of major components and sub-components including test and support equipment necessary to sustain the HAC/RMPE.

2.5.2.1.1.5 Codes:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’r knowledge of Common Certification Operating System (CCOS), Strategic Air Command Code Processing System Application Program (SAP,) and WCPS Minuteman Application Program (WMAP) software or similar system(s)

2.5.2.1.1.5.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s expertise and knowledge of ICBM Codes Processing System (ICPS)/WCPS-unique equipment, associated test equipment, and experience. Offeror shall describe supporting agencies and associated function.

2.5.2.1.1.5.2 The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s knowledge of the required activities and intervals to conduct the ICPS Maintenance Technician and Code Controller training courses.

2.5.2.1.1.5.3 Trainers Contractor Logistics Support (CLS): The Government will evaluate the offeror’s relative

MMIII Trainers maintenance technical expertise.

2.5.2.1.1.5.4 Ground Minuteman Automated Test System (GMATS) CLS: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s relative GMATS technical expertise.

2.5.2.1.2 Recruitment and Retention Plan: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach for recruiting and retaining technical expertise to include subcontractors. Specifically, the Government will consider how technical experts are grown, promoted and retained within the company; how the company will recruit new technical expertise; and historical turnover rates and turnaround time to fill gaps in technical support.

2.5.2.1.2.1Additionally, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s recruitment and retention approach for the following awardable task orders:

2.5.2.1.2.2 IOSSP: Expertise and security clearances necessary to sustain the following IOSSP domains:

• Airborne Vehicle Equipment (AVE)

▪ Operational Ground Program (OGP)

▪ Operational Flight Program (OFP)

• Console Operations Program (COP)

• Mission Planning Element (MPE)

• Minuteman Operational Targeting Program (MOTP)

▪ Strategic Targeting Support Software (STSS)

• Squadron Data Simulator (SDS)

• Wing Code Processing System (WCPS)

2.5.2.1.2.3 Trainers CLS:

Recruitment and retention approach specific to Trainers personnel

2.5.2.1.2.4 GMATS CLS:

Recruitment and retention approach specific to GMATS personnel

2.5.2.1.3 Technical Skill Mix compared to Labor Hours

Each labor category will be compared to total labor hours to determine the adequacy of the offeror’s proposed skill mix. Note: Programatic and other business functions will count towards the total hours in the calculation. The Government will evaluate the skill mix as well as verify an adequate level of total hours support is available to sustain the Ground Systems.

The skill mix of each area will be evaluated to determine critical skills are available and the correct balance of skills is proposed.

Additionally, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed skill mix for the following awardable task orders:

2.5.2.1.3.1 General Sustainment Task Order

The Government will evaluate the total skill mix proposed to sustain the Ground Systems to determine the offeror has identified adequate skill positions in addition to the optimal balance of support.

2.5.2.1.3.2 IOSSP Task Order

The Government will evaluate the offerors approach to maintain the capability of the following software laboratories:

• AVE – Boeing-Huntington Beach, CA

• COP – Lockheed Martin, Colorado Springs, CO

• MPE – Northrop Grumman-Omaha, Bellvue, NE

• MOTP – Northrop Grumman-Space Park, Space Park, CA

• DARTS – Northrop Grumman-Omaha, Bellvue, NE

• WCPS – Boeing-Huntington Beach, CA

2.5.2.1.3.3 HAC/RMPE CLS Task Order

The Government will evalauate the offeror’s approach to maintain the coding expertise for:

• Message Processor (MP): Ada (PWS 1.4.3)

• Communication Integrator/Backup (CI/B): Ada, 8086 Assembly code (PWS 1.4.3)

• Transmission Integrator (TI): Ada, 8086 Assembly code (PWS 1.4.3)

2.5.2.2 Subfactor Two: Transition – The purpose of including Transition as a subfactor is to ensure necessary deliverables are provided with minimal government intervention. The Government cannot tolerate a laps in sustainment coverage and requires cooperation from all parties involved. Note, there could be many companies involved with transition (incumbent, subcontractors, and/or new awardee).

2.5.2.2.1 Transition Plan - The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the following elements of the offeror’s Transition Plan Data products needed

• Unique data/hardware required to effectively perform tasks

• Description of how to incorporate data from incumbent (or changes if incumbent)

• Schedule for identified products to be provided

• Format needed/requested to properly view and use

• Items requiring training

• Recommended communication method

• Itellectual Property that will not be provided

• Risk(s) identified with proposed mitigation

2.5.2.2.2 Facilities, and Equipment required to execute the PWS – The Government will evaluate the offeror’s description of the facilities, equipment, and qualified personnel and/or their approach to obtain facilities, equipment, and qualified personnel necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s approach adequately satisfies the full scope of the PWS requirements while minimizing negative impacts to other on-going Ground Subsystems efforts. The Govenernment will also evaluate the offeror’s ability to obtain and effectively utilize these facilities, equipment, and qualified personnel within the 6-month transition period and provide supporting information that the offeror is knowledgeable of the work to be performed.

2.5.2.2.3 HAC/RMPE

2.5.2.2.3.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s HAC/RMPE transition approach for the following:

• Multiple baseline schedule delivering as ordered by USSTRATCOM (PWS 1.4.5)

• Technical baseline documents (specifications, technical orders, etc.) as required for twice a year software builds (PWS 1.4.3)

• Concept for Software Support for HAC/RMPE through transition (i.e. emergency urgent software updates)

2.5.2.2.3.2 Codes

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to transition equipment, GFP, and documentation at various locations required to support Codes.

2.5.2.2.3.3 Trainers CLS

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to transition equipment, GFP, and documentation at various locations required to support Trainers.

2.5.2.2.3.4 GMATS

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to transition equipment, GFP, and documentation at various locations required to support GMATS.

2.5.2.2.3.4.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to transition Huntron repair from contractor site to depot repair.

2.5.2.3 Subfactor Three: Program Management

2.5.2.3.1 Program Managerment Plan (PMP). As part of this subfactor the following sections of the PMP will be evaluated for adequacy:

2.5.2.3.1.1 Subcontract Management Plan

The government will evaluate the offeror’s teaming arrangment status with its subcontractors (e.g. on contract, in negotiations, etc.). Evaluation will include time frames for subcontract awards and associated contractor agreements.

If an offeror does not currently have access to the encumbered GFP, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to obtain facilities, equipment, and qualified personnel necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS along with supporting information that the offeror is knowledgeable of the work to be performed.

2.5.2.3.1.2 Small Business Participation Plan

The Small Business element is considered to be acceptable when the offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the Small Business Participation requirements as defined in the PWS. The Small Business Participation Plan is not to be confused with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required in FAR Clause 52.219-9. The offeror will be evaluated on its Small Business Participation Plan. The evaluation of the Small Business Participation Plan will also include the following:

a. The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in the offeror’s proposal;

b. The extet of commitment to use such firms (e.g. enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

c. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

2.6 Volume III –Cost/Price

Each offeror’s cost proposal shall follow the Task Order and WBS format provided at the end of each task order

PWS.

2.6.1 Factor 2 – Cost/Price Factor

The Pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Price Reasonableness, Realism (on portions of the volume as detailed below), Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award. However, the CLIN prices and rates proposed in the Labor Rate Matrices used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding.

2.6.1.1 Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.6.1.2 Price Reasonableness. All task orders and CLINs will be reviewed for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. Generally adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring price reasonableness. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market and its affordability. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price.

2.6.1.3 Realism. The Government will evaluate the realism of each offeror’s proposed Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) CLINs. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the budget provided in section L, Table 1 anticipated costs of performance, and offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical Risk Rating, the offerors lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactors. Proposal Analysis Techniques found in FAR 15.404-1 will be utilized. If the Government feels the offeror’s probable cost differs from its proposed cost the Government reserves the right to utilize the probable cost for purposes of best value IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2). It is anticipated that the same burdened base rates (less profit/fee) for all cost type rates will be identical to the fixed price type rates in the Labor Rate Matrix. This is anticipated to satisfy the realism evaluation for these labor rates. If this is not the case or the Government feels it needs further information to support price realism the Government reserves the right to request further information.

2.6.1.4 Balance. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit Task Order or CLIN pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.6.1.5 Awardable Task. The cost and technical teams will perform an integrated assessment on Awardable Tasks. The Awardable Tasks pricing will be included as part of the TEP evaluation. Awardable Tasks may be awarded at contract award and the offeror will be held to the prices submitted. However, the Government reserves the right to not award these tasks.

2.6.1.6 Total Evaluated Price Section J, Attachment 14. The TEP will be computed as the sum of the eight (8) awardable tasks (General Sustainment, IOSSP Sustainment, HAC/RMPE CLS, Codes, Trainers CLS, GMATS CLS, SACCS CLS, ALCS Sustainment) for the Basic and all ordering and option periods and Transition (CLIN 0006). All rates and labor categories shall conform to the labor rate matrix.

2.6.1.7 Labor Rates will be established for pricing all future contractual modifications/Task Orders for all specified pricing arrangements. Fully loaded rates are inclusive of base labor rates and all applicable direct and indirect costs less profit which will be included as a separate percentage for each pricing arrangement.

2.6.1.8 Basis of Estimate (BOE): The offeror’s priced BOE for all awardable tasks (CLINs X005) will be evaluated for price reasonableness, cost realism, and balance. If the offerors fee or price is determined to be either unbalanced, unreasonable or not have cost realism, the offeror’s proposal may be rated as unacceptable.

2.6.1.9 Professional Employee Compensation Plan:.IAW with FAR Provision 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.

Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

3.0 REPRESENATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 Data Rights Evaluation Criteria

a. The Government will review (1) the completeness, correctness and meets Government asserted rights of tables 1 through 4 in Section J, Attachment 2, Government Rights in Data (GRID) of the solicitation and

(2) the data rights therein to ensure they are completed in accordance with DFARS clauses 252.227-7013, 252.227- 7014, 252.227-7015, and 252.227-7017. An incomplete or incorrect submission may result in a rejection of the proposal.

b. The Offeror proposes, in accordance with Section J, Attachment 2, (GRID), rights in data that satisfies the Government’s minimum needs as described in this RFP. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s completed GRID document to ensure all sections are completed correctly. The analysis conducted by the Offeror (including all assumptions made) demonstrates that the quantity associated with the licenses for commercial item technical data and computer software the Offeror proposes to deliver to the Government listed in Table 2 of its completed Section J, Attachment 2 (GRID) will be sufficient for the Government to successfully execute all programs that comprise the AFNWC nuclear enterprise.

c. The Government will evaluate the extent to which any limitations on rights in technical data, computer software, or computer software documentation (e.g., Government Purpose Rights, or Limited Rights) negatively impact immediate and potential future costs of using such data, including potential impacts on future competitive contracting actions. Proposals that include Government Purpose Rights or Limited Rights data may be negatively impacted based on the Government’s estimate of future costs.

4.0 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.

5.0 REVIEWS AND VISITS

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or 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 and/or oral presentation.

6.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or 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.