RVA Section M v2 redlined.pdf

M-1

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

REMOTE VISUAL ASSESSMENT CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT

SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 Source Selection

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2 “Solicitations shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.” Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for solutions that exceed required minimum thresholds. Offeror with the lowest evaluated price, who is deemed technically acceptable and has acceptable past performance and determined to be responsible in accordance with the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements will be awarded the contract. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The government intends to select one contractor for the Remote Visual Assessment (RVA) Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) program. However, the government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the government’s best interest.

1.3 Major Proposal Revisions

If a proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation requiring major revisions to meet the technical requirement, the government reserves the right to exclude the offeror from the competitive range.

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors

The government will evaluate the factors and subfactors described below. The proposal is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates in detail, an effective approach for all technical capabilities required for sustainment and installation in accordance with the Performance Work Schedule (PWS). It is the government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation

M-2 period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

The government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor One – Price Factor Two – Technical Capability Subfactor 1: Engineering Services Subfactor 2: Maintenance and Support Subfactor 3: Network and Cybersecurity Operations Subfactor 4: Program Management Factor Three – Past Performance

2.2 Evaluation Methodology

2.2.1 An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offers in accordance with this section and proposals will be ranked from lowest-to-highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and then proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the technical and past performance factors as defined in Section 2.2.2 below.

2.2.2 A technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the two lowest priced offerors.

2.2.2.1 If there are two technically acceptable offerors, with acceptable past performance, meeting all the other requirements of this solicitation, then the lowest price offeror will be awarded.

2.2.2.2 If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable or does not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may:

2.2.2.2.1 Award to the first technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance; or

2.2.2.2.2 Set a competitive range that may include all of the offers up to and including the first acceptable offeror; or

2.2.2.2.3 Continue evaluating additional offers

2.2.2.3 Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability.

2.2.2.4 Technical and past performance evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

M-3

2.3 Factor One- Cost/Price:

2.3.1 Pricing Criteria

The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor are: (1) Completeness,

(2) Price Reasonableness (3) Balance, (4) Realism (on portions of the volume as detailed below) and (5) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). IAW FAR 52.222-46, the government will evaluate the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan.

2.3.2 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the Request for Proposal (RFP). Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.3.3 Price Reasonableness

The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be reviewed for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 – Proposal Analysis Techniques. Based on the level of interest for this requirement, it is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness. For a price to be 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.

2.3.4 Balance

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) pricing or labor rate 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.

2.3.5 Realism

The Government will evaluate the realism of each offeror’s proposed Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) 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 anticipated costs of performance and an offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government may consider, under the Technical Rating, the offeror’s 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).

M-4

2.3.6 Basis of Estimate (BOE)

The offeror’s priced BOEs will be evaluated for price reasonableness, realism, and balance as defined above. If the offeror’s BOE is determined to be either unbalanced, unreasonable, or does not have cost realism, the offeror’s proposal may be rated as unacceptable.

2.3.7 Total Evaluated Price

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. The TEP will be computed as the sum of the following elements:

2.3.7.1 All CPFF CLINs will be evaluated at the Proposed Cost plus proposed fee (0001, 1001, 2001, 3001 and 4001).

2.3.7.2 Spares/Material shall be under CRNF CLINs and will be evaluated as part of the proposal. The offeror shall provide estimates for spares/material based on the PWS requirements. The Government will verify that each individual CRNF CLIN is in accordance with FAR 31.205-46 and other applicable guidance. (0002, 1002, 2002, 3002 and 4002)

2.3.7.3 Contract Data Requirements List shall be under a Not-Separately-Priced (NSP) CLIN and will not be evaluated as part of the total evaluated price. The pricing for this CLIN (0005, 1005, 2005, 3005 and 4005) will be included in the pricing of CLIN (0001, 1001, 2001, 3001 and 4001).

2.3.7.4 All FFP optional tasks will be based on pre-negotiated labor rates and scope of work associated with each Wing Study. (CLIN 5001, 5002, 5003, 5004 and 5004)

2.3.7.5 All Direct and Indirect rates will be compared to FPRA’s, FPRR’s. In the event no FPRA/FPRR’s are available rates will be compared to local industry rates using online wage indexes.

2.3.7.6 All offerors need to state how subcontractors were evaluated. If the subcontractors were competed what was the evaluation criteria. If the subcontractor was a sole source they shall provide all rates, and completed TEP and Labor matrix for the government to evaluate.

2.3.8 Approved Accounting System

Small Business’ are not required to be CAS compliant, however the offeror must have an accounting system adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract.

M-5

2.4 Factor Two- Technical Capability

2.4.1 The Technical Volume will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. The offeror’s Technical Volume must convey to the Government that the offeror is capable, possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Technical Volume shall explain how the contractor will accomplish/satisfy the requirements and the amount of technical risk that will be associated with each strategy.

The Technical Volume shall NOT simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements in the PWS. The offeror’s proposal shall NOT merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

The offeror’s approach shall address all requirements IAW the following Paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the PWS unless otherwise noted.

The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” to each individual subfactor within Factor Two. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single subfactor is rated “Unacceptable.” Technical subfactors will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings identified in Table 1, Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method, which is IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1:

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

The Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating is based on:

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

2.4.1 Subfactor 1: Engineering Services (PWS 3.25 and sub-paragraphs, 3.11, 3.19, 3.20, 3.21, 3.22)

M-6

The offeror’s engineering services approach is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which demonstrates an explicit understanding and effective approach to each paragraph within this subfactor. The offeror’s approach shall address all requirements IAW the PWS paragraphs listed next to the Engineering Services subfactor unless otherwise noted. This subfactor is comprised of the following:

2.4.1.1 Configuration Management (PWS 3.7 and sub-paragraphs) The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will adequately and effectively accomplish configuration management IAW the PWS paragraphs listed next to the Engineering Services subfactor unless otherwise noted.

a. Configuration Identification. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively incorporate configuration identification into Remote Visual Assessment hardware, software, firmware and drawing configuration management. (PWS 3.7.3, 3.23.3, 3.26.3)

b. Configuration Control. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively incorporate configuration control into Remote Visual Assessment hardware, software, firmware and drawing configuration management. (PWS 3.7.2, 3.7.8, 3.26.4)

c. Configuration Status Accounting. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively incorporate configuration status accounting into Remote Visual Assessment hardware, software, firmware and drawing configuration management. (PWS 3.7.8, 3.23.4, 3.23.5, 3.26.1, 3.26.4)

d. Configuration Audits. The proposal is technically acceptable if the and effectively incorporate configuration audits into Remote Visual Assessment hardware, software, firmware and drawing configuration management. (PWS 3.7.2, 3.7.6, 3.7.8, 3.7.10, 3.23.4, 3.23.5, 3.26.4)

e. ASME Drawing Standards Proficiency. The proposal is technically ability to correctly utilize ASME Drawing Standards into Remote Visual Assessment hardware, software, firmware and drawing configuration management. (PWS 3.7.9, 3.7.10)

M-7

2.4.1.2 Hardware Sustainment (PWS 3.7.8)

The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will adequately and effectively accomplish hardware development and sustainment IAW the PWS paragraphs listed next to the Engineering Services subfactor unless otherwise noted.

a. System Safety. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively incorporate system safety (risk management, nuclear safety, human factors, mishaps, and process improvement) into Remote Visual Assessment hardware development and sustainment.

(PWS 3.8, 3.10, 3.20, 3.21, 3.22)

b. Parts, Materials, and Maintenance. The proposal is technically ability to feasibly and effectively implement parts, material, and maintenance processes (counterfeit part reduction, item unique identification (IUID), environmental limitations, and foreign parts) into Remote Visual Assessment hardware development and sustainment. (PWS 3.7.2, 3.13, 3.14, 3.23.3, 3.26, 3.26.1, 3.26.2, 3.26.3)

c. Test and Evaluation. The proposal is technically acceptable if the and effectively implement Test and Evaluation processes IAW ICBMSD OI 99-103, Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation into Remote Visual Assessment hardware development and sustainment.

The proposal must demonstrate the ability to generate hardware test documentation (to include procedures), integration testing at the system and sub-system levels as well as regression and validation/verification. (PWS 3.7.7, 3.7.7.1, 3.7.7.2, 3.7.7.3, 3.23.6)

d. Deficiency Identification, Resolution, Implementation, and

Documentation. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively provide Remote Visual Assessment hardware problem identification, evaluation and resolution in support of field and contractor depot issues; support for new materials, processes, technologies, technical reviews; and material analysis, and assessments. (PWS 3.23.2, 3.25.6)

2.4.1.3 Software Sustainment (PWS 3.6, 3.7.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.7.11, 3.11, 3.12) of a clear methodology which demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will

M-8 adequately and effectively accomplish software development and sustainment IAW the PWS paragraphs listed next to the Engineering Services subfactor unless otherwise noted.

a. Development and Modification. The proposal is technically ability to feasibly and effectively implement the required processes, modeling, tools, and data and the ability to develop/modify software.

(PWS 3.4.3, 3.7.3, 3.7.6, 3.7.11, 3.24.5)

be. Anomaly Resolution and Integration. The proposal is technically ability to feasibly and effectively identify, evaluate, catalog, and resolve software anomalies and integrate them into the Remote Visual Assessment system. (PWS 3.24, 3.24.5)

bc. Test and Evaluation. The proposal is technically acceptable if the and effectively implement Test and Evaluation processes IAW ICBMSD OI 99-103, Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation into Remote Visual Assessment hardware development and sustainment.

The proposal must demonstrate the ability to generate hardware test documentation (to include procedures), integration testing at the system and sub-system levels as well as regression and validation/verification. (PWS 3.7.7, 3.7.7.1, 3.7.7.2, 3.7.7.3, 3.23.6)

2.4.1.4 Failure Analysis (PWS 3.25.6)

of a clear methodology which demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will adequately and effectively accomplish Failure Analysis IAW the PWS paragraphs listed next to the Engineering Services subfactor unless otherwise noted.

a. Organizational Notification. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to effectively report Remote Visual Assessment failures in the field and at the Network Control Center and Security Operations Center. (PWS 3.23.2, 3.25.6)

b. Failure Determination. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to conduct hardware and software failure determinations utilizing root cause analysis methods. (PWS 3.25.6)

c. Failure Resolution. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to resolve hardware and software failures post root cause analysis determination. (PWS 3.25.6)

M-9

2.4.2 Subfactor 2: Maintenance and Support (PWS 3.27)

The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will adequately and effectively accomplish maintenance and support IAW the PWS paragraphs listed next to the Maintenance and Support subfactor unless otherwise noted. This subfactor is comprised of the following:

a. Supply Chain Management. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively manage supply chain utilizing standard processes to address parts obsolescence, end-of-life, end-of-service, acquisition of hardware and software, and ultimately field to customers. (PWS 3.26, 3.26.1, 3.26.2, 3.26.3, 3.26.4)

b. Maintenance Tracking. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the offeror’s ability to utilize software and hardware tools to track maintenance actions from initiation to closure.

(PWS 3.26.3, 3.26.4, 3.27)

c. Reliability, Availability, Maintainability (RAM). The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively collect, assess, report and resolve issues based of RAM data. (PWS 3.25.1, 3.25.2, 3.25.3, 3.25.4, 3.25.5, 5.0)

d. Spares Use and Inventory. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to plan, project, and provision for spares utilizing RAM and maintenance information analysis to ensure uninterrupted field operations. (PWS 3.13, 3.14, 3.4.2, 3.26.1, 3.26.2, 3.26.3, 3.26.4)

2.4.3 Subfactor 3: Network and Cybersecurity Operations (3.4.3, 3.9, 3.10, 3.15 and all sub-paragraphs, 3.24 and all sub-paragraphs) The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will adequately and effectively accomplish network and cybersecurity operations IAW the PWS paragraphs listed next to the Network and Cybersecurity Operations subfactor unless otherwise noted. This subfactor is comprised of the following:

2.4.3.1 Encrypted Network Management (PWS 3.15.2)

of a clear methodology which demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will adequately and effectively accomplish encrypted network management IAW the PWS paragraphs listed next to the Network and Cybersecurity operations subfactor unless otherwise noted.

M-10

a. Remote System Administration and Network Management. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to provide remote system administrative expertise and management of encrypted networks from a network and security operation center. (PWS 3.4.4, 3.7.11, 3.9, 3.15.2, 3.23.2, 3.26.3, 3.26.4)

b. Secure Remote Monitoring and Software Updates. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to securely monitor and push updates to software to geo-separated locations. (PWS 3.7.8, 3.7.11, 3.9, 3.15.1)

c. Test and Evaluation. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively implement Test and Evaluation processes IAW ICBMSD OI 99-103, Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation. The proposal must demonstrate the ability to generate hardware and software test documentation (to include procedures), integration testing, as well as regression and validation/verification in a secure environment. (PWS 3.7.7, 3.7.7.1, 3.7.7.2, 3.7.7.3, 3.23.6)

2.4.3.2 Risk Management Framework (RMF) (PWS 3.15.1)

of a clear methodology which demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will adequately and effectively accomplish risk management framework IAW the PWS paragraphs listed next to the Network and Cybersecurity Operations subfactor unless otherwise noted.

a. eMASS. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to utilize eMASS to assess and report to meet RMF controls. (PWS 3.9, 3.15, 3.15.1, 3.15.2)

b. RMF Process. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate a clear understanding of the RMF process. (PWS 3.15, 3.15.1, 3.16, 3.17)

c. Physical and Non-Physical Controls. The proposal is technically offeror’s processes and methodologies for ensuring physical and non-physical controls meet RMF and Remote Visual Assessment requirements.

(PWS 3.15, 3.15.1, 3.16, 3.17)

d. Approval to Operate (ATO), Approval to Connect (ATC), and Approving

Authority (AO) Processes. The proposal is technically acceptable if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate a firm understanding of the

M-11 processes leading up to ATO/ATC as well as actions needed to continue operating a system. (PWS 3.15, 3.15.1, 3.15.2, 3.16, 3.17)

2.4.4 Subfactor 4: Program Management (PWS 3.1)

The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will adequately and effectively accomplish program management IAW the PWS paragraphs listed next to the Program Management Subfactor unless otherwise noted. This subfactor is comprised of the following:

a. Cost Management Process. The proposal is technically acceptable if the cost management processes meet the cost management requirements of the PWS.

(PWS 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.3)

b. Time Management Process. The proposal is technically acceptable if the time management and earned value management processes meet the time management and earned value management requirements of the PWS. (PWS 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.3)

c. Quality Management Process. The proposal is technically acceptable if the quality management processes meet the quality management requirements of the

PWS. (PWS 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5)

2.5 Factor Three—Past Performance

2.5.1 The government will evaluate past performance to determine if the offer has acceptable or unacceptable past performance. Award may be made to an offeror with acceptable but not unacceptable past performance. An offeror with no past performance shall be considered to have acceptable past performance in award. Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions, government databases such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or through the use of government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires. The past performance evaluation will consider the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken, and the offeror's overall performance record. Past Performance evaluation will be based on technical factors and cost/price factors. Only recent and relevant (as defined in Section L) past performance information will be considered. The government will consider this information, along with information obtained from other sources. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.

2.5.1.1 An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this

M-12 solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.5.1.2 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 based on a demonstrated record of performance, including cost and schedule. Once reviewing these aspects of past performance the Government will determine if the performance is acceptable or unacceptable. 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, PPI tool (attachment 1) and information obtained from other sources, such as the CPARS or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

(See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

2.6 Contract Documentation:

2.6.1 This volume will be reviewed for completeness. Incomplete documentation may be considered non-responsive. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the model contract, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by part 6.2 of Section L.

2.6.2 The Government will review the completeness and correctness of the offeror’s proposed Government Rights in Data (GRID) documents IAW the instructions in the GRID document and DFARS clauses 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, 252.227-7015, and 252.227-7017.

M-13

3.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all the solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offeror being deemed ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.