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 the GSSC 2.0 contract requirements, in a way that will be the most advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher Total Evaluated Price (TEP) 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 is determined to be of the best value to the Government. 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 will 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 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 or exceeds 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

The Government intends to maintain a competitive environment by ensuring the use of open teaming arrangements and prohibiting offerors from establishing exclusive buying or selling arrangements with any party, including a subcontractor or supplier, or in any way establishing a requirement that the contractor or any party, including a subcontractor or supplier, cannot provide GSSC support services to another party. Solicitation Provision H.001 – No Exclusive Teaming Arrangements in Section H of the solicitation establishes this requirement.

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

2.1 A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. Award will be made to the offeror with the proposal that is best value 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: Sample Task One – GMATS Subfactor Three: Sample Task Two – SELM Subfactor Four: Sample Task Three – Launch Facility Subfactor Five: Sample Task Four – IOSSP

Subfactor Six: Sample Task Five - SACCS

Factor II. Cost/Price

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

IAW FAR 15.304(e), the Technical factor, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, is significantly more important, than cost/price. However, cost/price will contribute to the selection decision. Within Factor I, subfactor One is significantly more important than subfactors Two - Six. Subfactors Two -Six are approximately equal in importance.

2.3 Technical Assessment

The evaluation of the technical proposal provides for two distinct but related assessments: Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have approximately 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)

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

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and capabilities explanation and how they will use their approach and capabilities to accomplish/satisfy requirements, and not merely restate requirements.

2.4 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 or exceeds the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor. Individual elements within each technical subfactor will not receive their own color rating, but will be rolled up into an overall subfactor rating.

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.

2.5 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. Each technical subfactor will receive a Technical Risk Rating (in addition to the color adjectival rating) as 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.

2.6 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the No Exclusive Teaming Arrangement (2.7.1.1.2.C) and Small Business Participation (2.7.1.1.2.D) portions of Technical Subfactor One on an acceptable or unacceptable basis as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as excerpted below. An “Unacceptable” rating in either of these two portions of Subfactor One will be considered a deficiency and render the entire subfactor unacceptable.

No Exclusive Teaming Arrangement Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Small Business Participation Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

2.7 Proposal Evaluation

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

2.7.1 Volume I, Factor I: Technical

The technical volume will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror addresses the sample tasks, the proposed approach, capabilities, and shows evidence of meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each Technical subfactor.

As part of Volume I the Government will evaluate the following six Technical subfactors:

Subfactor One: Technical Expertise Subfactor Two: Sample Task One - GMATS Subfactor Three: Sample Task Two - SELM Subfactor Four: Sample Task Three - Launch Facility Subfactor Five: Sample Task Four - IOSSP

Subfactor Six: Sample Task Five - SACCS

2.7.1.1 Subfactor One: Technical Expertise

2.7.1.1.1 Recruitment and Retention Plan (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.3.3.4) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s Recruitment and Retention plan clearly and comprehensively demonstrates the ability to maintain a technically competent workforce for the duration of this contract through an evaluation of:

A) IAW with FAR Provision 52.222-46, the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation plan to ensure 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, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation, to include benefits. The Government may utilize supporting information to 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 as a basis for evaluation of the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan.

Additionally, proposals including compensation levels lower than those of industry supported rates 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 lower 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 low in relationship to the various job categories, may be determined by the Government to impair the Offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees and may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements. Failure to comply with these provisions may be grounds for the offeror to be eliminated from the competition.

B) The offeror’s description of how personnel, including Subject Matter Experts, are grown, promoted and retained within the company.

C) The description of how the offeror addresses recruitment for all personnel, specifically technical expertise.

D) The description of how the offeror will maintain technical performance when employee turnover does occur.

2.7.1.1.2 Teaming Arrangements (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.3.3.4, 1.4.3.3.5, 1.4.10.7;

PWS – Basic 2.15, 2.16) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed team structure, including partnerships, demonstrates how the offeror will provide the required level of skills and experience to perform the acquisition and sustainment services for this contract. The evaluation will include:

A) The offeror’s proposed GSSC 2.0 team organization and written explanation detailing the roles, including the responsibilities and capabilities of EACH of the defined roles within the team organization (to include subcontractor, supplier, and interdivisional team). The organization chart and explanation of ALL team members and personnel fulfilling roles at the start of contract performance , and the explanation of the relevance of skills and prior strategic nuclear weapons/ICBM acquisition/sustainment experience of these individuals to the roles they will fill. The offeror’s proposed written explanation identifying ALL vacancies anticipated at the start of contract performance and the offeror’s plan to address such vacancies within six (6) months of the contract Post Award Conference.

B) The extent to which the signed Associated Contractor Agreements (ACA) or other agreements provided by the offeror show commitment to the program at a minimum for the base contract period.

C) A determination as ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE that the offeror has provided an affirmative statement that they have not entered into any exclusive teaming arrangements as defined in the No Exclusive Teaming Arrangement H Solicitation Provision.

D) A determination as ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE that the offeror’s Small Business Participation approach meets the small business subcontracting goals identified within PWS – Basic 2.16.

2.7.1.1.3 Data Rights (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.3.4)

2.7.1.1.3.1 The Government will evaluate the completeness and correctness of the offeror’s proposed Government Rights in Data (GRID) documents for each awardable task order (Section J, Attachments 2A-H) IAW the instructions in the GRID document and DFARS clauses 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, 252.227-7015, and 252.227- 7017.

2.7.1.1.3.2 For any proposed limitations (if any) on technical data and computer software deliverables and/or rights in technical data, computer software, or computer software documentation in the offeror’s proposal (e.g., Government Purpose Rights, Limited Rights or Specifically Negotiated License Rights), the Government will evaluate the extent to which, even with these limitations in place, the Government will be able to maintain full and open competition on future contracting actions, minimize life-cycle costs, and sustain the MMIII Ground Subsystems.

2.7.1.2 Sample Tasks

As part of Volume I the government will evaluate five (5) sample task scenarios provided by the Government.

2.7.1.2.1 Subfactor Two: Sample Task One - Ground Minuteman Automatic Test Station (GMATS) (PWS

– Attachment 5 GMATS 1.4.2) The Government’s evaluation of this sample task will focus on the extent to which the offeror’s proposed approach satisfies or exceeds the minimum sample task requirements (A-D).

The Government will evaluate:

A) the extent to which the offeror’s description of engineering analysis, strategy, processes, and deliverables for a Service Life Extension (SLE) to determine if the proposed approach ensures adequate oscilloscope support, to include:

i. Regression testing

ii. Interfacing organizations (government or non-government) required to support regression testing

iii. Systems engineering integration

iv. Products required to ensure future parts supportability

v. Deployment of oscilloscope solution

vi. Other notable aspects of SLE

B) the extent to which the plan of action and demonstrated ability to address anticipated spares shortfall C) the proposed approach’s ability to ensure all Air Force requirements are met with respect to:

i. Nuclear surety (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.7.2)

ii. Cybersecurity (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.8)

iii. Testing (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.1.8, 1.4.1.4)

iv. Configuration management (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.2.7)

D) the extent to which the offeror’s BOE and its ability, through its proposed technical expertise, skill mix, labor hours, and justification, support the estimate of work to be completed within 6 months

2.7.1.2.2 Subfactor Three: Sample Task Two – Simulated Electronic Launch Minuteman (SELM) (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.1) The Government’s evaluation of this sample task will focus on the extent to which the offeror’s proposed approach satisfies or exceeds the minimum sample task requirements (A-D).

The Government will evaluate:

A) the extent to which the offerors description of engineering analysis, strategy, processes, and deliverables, to include:

i. Troubleshooting to determine root cause

ii. Interfacing organizations (government or non-government) required to support testing

iii. Systems engineering integration

iv. Software deployment

B) the extent to which the offeror’s ability to manufacture parts based on current drawings C) the extent to which the proposed approach’s ability to ensure all Air Force requirements are met with respect to:

i. Nuclear surety (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.7.2)

ii. Nuclear Certification (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.7.2.3)

iii. Cybersecurity (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.8)

iv. Testing (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.1.8, 1.4.1.4)

v. Configuration management (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.2.7)

D) the extent to which the offeror’s BOE and its ability, through its proposed technical expertise, skill mix, labor hours, and justification, support the estimate of work to be completed within 6 months

2.7.1.2.3 Subfactor Four: Sample Task Three – Launch Facility (LF) (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.7, 1.4.1.7.5) The Government’s evaluation of this sample task will focus on the offeror’s proposed approach and how well it satisfies or exceeds the minimum sample task requirements (A-C).

The Government will evaluate:

A) the extent to which the offerors description of engineering analysis, strategy, processes, and deliverables, to include:

i. Root cause analysis

ii. Impact assessment

iii. Interfacing organizations (government or non-government) required to support solution

iv. Systems engineering integration

v. Products required

vi. Solution deployment

B) the extent to which the proposed approach’s ability to ensure all Air Force requirements are met with respect to :

i. Nuclear surety (PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.7.2)

ii. Nuclear Hardness (PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.7.1)

iii. Testing (PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.1.8, 1.4.1.4)

iv. Configuration management (PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.2.7)

v. Corrosion (PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.7.5)

vi. Environmental (PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.7.4)

vii. System Safety (PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.7.3)

C) the extent to which the offeror’s BOE and its ability, through its proposed technical expertise, skill mix, labor hours, and justification, support the estimate of work to be completed within 8 months

2.7.1.2.4 Subfactor Five: Sample Task Four – ICBM Operational Software Sustainment Program (IOSSP) (PWS – Attachment 2 IOSSP 1.4.15) The Government’s evaluation of this sample task will focus on the offeror’s proposed approach and how well it satisfies or exceeds the minimum sample task requirements (A-C).

The Government will evaluate:

A) the extent to which the offeror’s description of engineering analysis, strategy, processes, and deliverables, to include:

i. Impact assessment

ii. Interfacing organizations (government or non-government) required to support solution

iii. Systems engineering integration

iv. Requirements Traceability Matrix

v. Deployment impacts

B) the extent to which the proposed approach’s ability to ensure all Air Force requirements are met with respect to :

i. Nuclear surety (PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.7.2)

ii. Testing (PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.1.8, 1.4.1.4)

iii. Configuration management (PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.2.7)

C) the extent to which the offeror’s BOE and its ability, through its proposed technical expertise, skill mix, labor hours, and justification, support the estimate of work to be completed within 18 months

2.7.1.2.5 Subfactor Six: Sample Task Five – Strategic Automated Command Control System (SACCS) (PWS

– Attachment 6 SACCS 2.1.4) The Government’s evaluation of this sample task will focus on the offeror’s proposed approach and how well it satisfies or exceeds the minimum sample task requirements (A-D).

The Government will evaluate:

A) the extent to which the offeror’s description of engineering analysis, strategy, processes, and deliverables, to included:

i. Possible interface related issues

ii. Risk Management Framework (RMF)

iii. Training and hardware updates

iv. Emergency Action Messages (EAM) certification

B) the extent to which the offeror’s proposed schedule that includes a rapid completion plan that will ensure mission continuity

C) the extent to which the proposed approach’s ability to ensure all Air Force requirements are met with respect to:

i. Cybersecurity (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.8)

ii. Configuration management (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.2.7)

iii. Nuclear hardness and surety in the LCC environment (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment

1.4.1.7.1, 1.4.1.7.2) D) the extent to which the offeror’s BOE and its ability, through its proposed technical expertise, skill mix, labor hours, and justification, support rapid completion of KIV-7M replacement within 18 months

3.0 Volume II, Factor II: Cost/Price

3.1 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. All Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) CLINs (0001 and 0004) will not be evaluated and are for funding purposes only.

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

3.3 Price Reasonableness

All CLINs provided in Section J Attachment 5, Section J Attachment 10, and Section J Attachment 14 will be evaluated 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. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price. Any proposed task order that is above the provided budget in Section L, Table 1 relays an unreasonable bid and may be grounds for the offeror to be eliminated from the competition.

3.4 Realism

The Government will evaluate the realism of each offeror’s proposed labor rates of all Cost 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). Proposal Analysis Techniques found in FAR 15.404-1 will be utilized. If the Government evaluates the offeror’s probable cost as different 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 Section J, Attachment 10, Labor Rate Matrix. This is anticipated to satisfy the realism evaluation for these labor rates. If this is not the case or the Government determines it needs further information to support price realism the Government reserves the right to request further information.

3.5 Balance

The Government will evaluate the balance of each offeror’s proposed costs of the labor rates of all CLINs of the awardable task orders. 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.

3.6 Awardable Tasks

The Government will perform an assessment of each awardable task by evaluating the prime contractor’s submission of Section J, Attachment 5, Pricing Matrix, and the prime and subcontractor’s submissions of Section J, Attachment 9, Labor Hour Summary Worksheet and Section J, Attachment 10, Labor Rate Matrix. Any proposed task order that is under the provided budget in Section L, Table 1 (within 1%) relays an unrealistic bid and may be grounds for the offeror to be eliminated from the competition. Any proposed task order that is over the provided budget in Table 1 (within 1%) conveys an unreasonable bid and may be grounds for the offeror to be eliminated from the competition. The Government will perform an integrated assessment on Section J, Attachment 9, Labor Hour Summary Worksheet to determine the reasonableness and balance of the proposed skill mix. 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.

3.7 Total Evaluated Price, Section J Attachment 14

To compute TEP the government will apply notional hours to predetermined mix of labor categories across various fiscal years and various pricing arrangements (CPAF, FFP, and CPFF). The sum of these notional hours applied to the offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor rates for each labor category, the offeror’s proposed award fee percentages, and the offeror’s proposed transition price will determine TEP. All rates and labor categories shall conform to the Labor Rate Matrix, Section J Attachment 10. The Offeror’s Labor Category and Mapping Worksheet (Section J, Attachment 8), will be used to map government labor categories to contractor labor categories for notional hours application. The labor categories, labor mix, and distribution amongst pricing arrangements will be established by the Government, but neither the labor mix (weighting), pricing arrangement distribution, nor allocation of notional hours will be disclosed to the offeror.

If the offeror’s proposal, to include subcontractor proposals, contains multiple contractor-defined labor categories from Section J, Attachment 8 that map to one Government-defined labor category in Section J, Attachment 7, the Government will take a percentage of the proposed hours for the prime contractor and all subcontractors for a given labor category within an awardable task and apply that same percentage to the Government’s notional hours within that awardable task. The notional hours allocation will then be applied to the offeror’s proposed rates. See table below for an example:

Contractor/Subcontractor Labor Categories

Contractor/Subcontractor Proposed Hours

Awardable Task Usage

Government Labor

Category

Government Notional

Hours

Notional Hours

Allocation Mechanical Engineer 1000 43% Systems

Engineer 1500 645

Electrical Engineer 500 22% 330 Chemical Engineer 800 35% 525

Total 2300 Total 1500

3.8 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.

3.9 Basis of Estimate (BOE)

The offeror’s priced BOE for transition will be evaluated for price reasonableness and balance. If the offerors fee or price is determined to be unbalanced or unreasonable, the offeror’s proposal may be grounds for the offeror to be eliminated from the competition. The offeror’s proposed transition cost will be included in the TEP.

4.0 Volume III, Contract Documentation

4.1 The Government will evaluate the completeness and correctness of the offeror’s contract documentation submission as part of Volume III. An incomplete or incorrect submission may result in a rejection of the proposal.

5.0 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.