Section_M_Draft_PSSC_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_20140327.docx

As of 20140327

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-I - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

NOTICE: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference:

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

M-II – SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT

NOTICE: The following provisions are hereby incorporated in full text:

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

D. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ONE-TIME USE PROVISIONS:

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR website, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents, of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. 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 and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the Propulsion Subsystem Support Contract (PSSC); 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 not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.5 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The Government will eliminate any unfair competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP) as provided in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents, Paragraph 7.3.4.2, GFP and/or Base Support Requirements. The cost to move or modify any GFP from an old location to a new location will be included in the cost of the contract.

1.6 Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (EN) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable 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 effect changes to the ratings.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

a. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. 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 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Propulsion Subsystem Assessment Subfactor 2: Technical Skills and Services Subfactor 3: Transition Subfactor 4: Program Management Support Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

b. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance, and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is last in importance. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are in descending order of importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Evaluation Factors and Significant Subfactors, all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

2.1.1 Factor 1 - Technical

a. The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor. The separate Technical Risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. Offerors shall describe their approaches and capabilities and explain how they will use their approaches and capabilities to accomplish/meet requirements, and not merely restate requirements. Strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies are defined as:

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. (DoD Source Selection Procedures 5.21)

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001, Definitions and DoD Source Selection Procedures 5.22)

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, Definitions and DoD Source Selection Procedures 5.4)

b. Technical Rating. The Technical Rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures as shown in Table 1 – Technical Ratings excerpted below. 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.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

1) Technical Subfactor 4, Program Management Support will be evaluated as Acceptable/Unacceptable described in DoD Source Selection Procedures and as shown in Table 2 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings excerpted below. The Acceptable/ Unacceptable Rating is based on the approach and capability for performing the Propulsion Subsystem Program Management Support requirements.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

c. Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk Ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures and as shown in Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings excerpted below. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach (process/methodology) in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable. The Government will not be bound by the offeror’s proposed acceptable level of risk mitigation or proposed risk rating determination, and the Government will make the final determination of the Technical Risk Rating assigned in the evaluation.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Low Has 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 Can 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 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.

2.1.1.1 Subfactor 1: Propulsion Subsystem Assessment

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capability and approach (processes/methodologies) to: conduct assessments, maximize the use of data, minimize bias, select assets, conduct test, and analyze test requirements, results, and data. Evaluation will focus on how well the offeror meets or exceeds the PWS aging surveillance (AS) and assessment requirements. This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal addresses the following PWS requirements. The requirement is exceeded when the offeror's proposal substantiates capabilities and an approach to increase efficiency and seamlessly complement AS program plans while minimizing data bias and maintaining confidence levels. The proposed approach (processes/ methodologies) must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrates capabilities within each of the following Integrated Product Teams on efforts of similar magnitude and complexity and how it applies to Propulsion Subsystem requirements.

2.1.1.1.1 Solid Propulsion AS (PWS 1.6.6.2.6.1.1.2, 1.6.6.2.6.1.2.1, 1.6.6.2.6.1.2.4, 1.6.6.2.8.1, and 1.6.6.2.8.3) Capability to conduct testing (propellant, liner, insulator, materials, case, and stage subsystems and components), prepare and provide test samples, and obtain alternate method to provide solid propellant samples for testing

2.1.1.1.2 Liquid Propulsion AS (PWS 1.6.6.2.6.2.1.2, 1.6.6.2.6.2.1.3, 1.6.6.2.6.2.1.4, 1.6.6.2.8.1, and 1.6.6.2.8.3) Capability to assess and evaluate Propulsion System Rocket Engine (PSRE) system and all subcomponents missile test data, and conduct AS testing of PSRE subcomponents and materials

2.1.1.1.3 Ordnance AS (PWS 1.6.6.2.6.3.2, 1.6.6.2.6.3.3, 1.6.6.2.8.1, and 1.6.6.2.8.3) Capability to assess ordnance devices, select test articles, and determine ordnance aging trends

2.1.1.1.4 Flight Controls Assessment (1.6.6.2.6.4.1.2, 1.6.6.2.6.4.1.3, 1.6.6.2.6.4.1.4, 1.6.6.2.8.1, and 1.6.6.2.8.3) Capability to assess and evaluate flight control units and subcomponents, monthly missile test data, and closed loop failure analysis, and methodology to conduct an aging assessment of flight control subcomponents and materials

2.1.1.1.5 Flight Battery AS (1.6.6.2.6.5.2, 1.6.6.2.6.5.3, 1.6.6.2.6.5.4, 1.6.6.2.8.1, and 1.6.6.2.8.3) Capability to select test article, evaluate and assess batteries, and how the offeror will assess the aging of components and materials

2.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Technical Skills and Services

The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the offeror’s ability to provide sustaining engineering capability and the associated engineering skills required to sustain the Propulsion Subsystem. The Government will determine if the offeror has demonstrated the capability and approach (processes/methodologies) to transform Government needs into work products, systems, or materials to resolve technical deficiencies and the extent to which they can meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrates the applicability to the Minuteman III (MMIII) Propulsion Subsystem.

2.1.1.2.1 Team Structure (PWS 1.6.5.6.1)

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the ability to provide the required skills and experience to perform acquisition and sustainment services. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal addresses the following PWS requirements. This requirement is exceeded when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a synergistic capability to provide various types of technical support to resolve maintenance, software, and hardware issues. The Government will determine if the proposed approach is sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrates the applicability to MMIII Propulsion Subsystem.

a. Team Organization. Organizational structure, including its interdependencies, key relationships, and communication channels to determine if the offeror's proposed roles, responsibilities, and capabilities demonstrate relevance to MMIII Propulsion Subsystem acquisition and sustainment.

b. Skill sets. Blend of skill sets and MMIII acquisition and sustainment experience are sufficient to meet the requirements of the PWS.

c. Teaming Arrangements. Written or planned partnerships/contractual agreements in place, sufficient to meet the requirements of the PWS.

2.1.1.2.2 Modeling and Simulation (PWS 1.6.6.2.10)

The Government will evaluate the offeror's capability and approach (processes/methodologies) to develop, simulate, and update models, and how well their capability and approach (processes/ methodologies) meet or exceed the modeling and simulation requirements in the PWS. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal addresses physical resources, engineering skills, and analytical capabilities that meet the requirements in the PWS. This requirement is exceeded when the offeror’s proposal substantiates capability to provide modeling and simulation of various aspects of the MMIII Propulsion Subsystem beyond current Propulsion Subsystem models.

2.1.1.2.3 Sustaining Engineering (1.6.6.1.8, 1.6.6.1.9, 1.6.6.1.11, and 1.6.6.1.13) The Government’s evaluation of sustaining engineering will focus on the detail of the offeror’s approach, and how well it meets or exceeds the PWS requirements while demonstrating the capability their team possesses for performing sustaining engineering. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal addresses the PWS requirements for the following elements (listed below). This requirement is exceeded when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates knowledge, skills, and capabilities that can enhance sustaining engineering assessment of MMIII Propulsion Subsystems. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrates the applicability and how it applies to the following Propulsion Subsystem requirements:

a. Software Support

b. Maintenance Support

c. Hardware Support

d. Demilitarization and Disposal

2.1.1.3 Subfactor 3: Transition

2.1.1.3.1 Tasks and Responsibilities Transfer (PWS 1.6.5.8.3.1, 1.6.5.8.3.2, and 1.6.5.8.3.6) The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the offeror’s transition strategy and how well it meets or exceeds PWS requirements. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s approach adequately meets the PWS requirements while minimizing negative impacts to other on-going Propulsion Subsystem efforts, including transition risk identification and mitigation. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding and approach, addressing intricacies required to transition tasks and responsibilities from the PBC, considering organization complexities involving the PSSC, Government, ISC, and partnerships. This requirement is exceeded when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an approach, resulting in a more efficient and shortened schedule with no loss to sustainment capabilities during transition period. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate with explicit evidence the full capability and experience their team possesses for assuming the full responsibilities of the PSSC effort no later than 6 months after the Post Award Conference.

2.1.1.3.2 Facilities, Equipment, Personnel, and Data (PWS 1.6.5.8.3.3, 1.6.5.8.3.4) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s description of the facilities, equipment, personnel, and data and/or their approach to obtain facilities, equipment, personnel, and data necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an approach to obtain and effectively utilize facilities, equipment, personnel, and data within the 6month transition period. The requirement is exceeded when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an approach, resulting in a more efficient and shortened schedule with no loss to sustainment capabilities during transition period.

2.1.1.4 Subfactor 4: Program Management Support

The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the offeror’s approach and how well it meets the Program Management Support PWS requirements. Evaluators shall utilize the ratings listed in Table 2 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings to determine capability for the Data Rights and Small Business Subcontracting Plan elements. There will not be a Technical Risk Rating for this subfactor.

2.1.1.4.1 Data Rights (PWS 1.6.5.7 and Section L 7.1.7.1)

The offeror is considered to be acceptable when the Data Rights element of Section J Attachment 2, GRID Tables 1 through 4 of the solicitation are completed correctly in accordance with DFARS Clauses 252.227-7013, Patents, Data, and Copyrights, Rights in Technical Data—Noncommercial Items; 252.227-7014, Patents, Data, and Copyrights, Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation; and 252.227-7017, Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions.

2.1.1.4.2 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (PWS 1.6.5.2, Section L 7.3.4.1, and H133 Clause) The Small Business element is considered to be acceptable when the offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the Small Business Subcontracting goals as defined in the H-133, Small Business Subcontracting Requirements Clause.

2.1.2. Factor 2 - Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

a. Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures and as shown in Table 4 – Performance Confidence Assessments excerpted below.

TABLE 4 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

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

NO

CONFIDENCE

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

b. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Section 2.0, Evaluation Factors, Paragraph 2.1b, Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Past Performance Questionnaires, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

1) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2) Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor, including their relative order of importance stated in Section 2.0, Evaluation Factors, Paragraph 2.1b, Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to the contractor’s role, similarity, and complexity of the effort accomplished by the contractor, subcontractor, and/or teaming partner on previous/current contract efforts of similar magnitude and complexity in areas related to strategic nuclear weapon systems. The Government will consider the contractor's experience with integrating highly complex system-of-systems interfaces and managing multiple simultaneous baselines. Past performance for a subcontractor and/or teaming partner will only be considered if that same subcontractor and/or teaming partner is to perform a similar function on the proposed effort. Higher relevancy, based on Table 5 below, will have a corresponding impact on the offeror's overall performance confidence assessment rating. Contracts will be evaluated individually, but the relevancy/performance of the offeror’s team may also be considered in aggregate. The relevancy ratings will be integrated in the overall confidence assessment. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s), and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIF) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following Table 5 Relevancy Assessment when assessing recent, relevant contracts in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures:

TABLE 5 - RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

3) Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), Proposal evaluation, the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. The Government will use the following Quality Assessment Ratings identified in Table 6 – Performance Quality Assessment when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 6 - PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

c. Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

d. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.1.3 Factor 3 - Cost/Price

2.1.3.1 Pricing

The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Price Reasonableness, Realism (where evaluated, see below), Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be the sum of all prepriced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) and application of fully loaded rates to notional hours. 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 notional hours, labor mix, and distribution among pricing arrangements selected by the Government to be included in the TEP will not become contractually binding and will not be disclosed to the offerors.

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

b. Price Reasonableness: The determination of price reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed CLINs with the exception of the Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) CLINs. The CRNF CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative contracting officer. All other CLINs will be reviewed for price reasonableness in accordance with the techniques described in FAR 15.404‐1, Proposal analysis techniques. 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.

c. Realism. The Government will evaluate the realism of each offerors’ 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), Proposal Analysis Techniques and 2.101, Definitions). When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical Risk 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 in accordance with 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 Matrices. 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.

d. Balance. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit 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, Requiring Certified Cost or Pricing Data (10 U.S.C. 2306a and 41 U.S.C. 254b). Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

e. Total Evaluated Price. The TEP will be computed as the sum of the following elements:

1) CPAF (CLINs 0001 and 0007) at the proposed estimated CPAF for the base and all option periods.

2) FFP (CLINs 0002 and 0004) at the proposed fixed price for the base and all option periods.

3) FPIF (CLIN 0006) at proposed ceiling prices.

4) FFP (CLIN 0007) at the Government stipulated award fee of 7% of target cost of CLIN 0006.

5) Labor Rate NTE (Not To Exceed) Matrix (Section J Attachment 4) rates will be established for pricing all future contract actions and awards. These rates will be multiplied by Government-generated notional hours. The distribution of rates and number of hours will be based on the Government's best estimate of efforts for all years of the contract. The labor categories and labor mix will be established by the Government, but neither the labor mix (weighting) nor allocation of notional hours will be disclosed to the offeror.

f. Basis of Estimate (BOE): The Priced Basis of Estimate (BOE) will be evaluated for price reasonableness, cost realism, and balance. If any element of the offeror’s BOE is determined to be either unbalanced, unreasonable, or not have cost realism, the offeror’s proposal may be rated as unacceptable. This will be applicable to all priced cost-type CLINs.

g. All Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs will not be evaluated as part of this proposal. The Government shall verify that all associated costs are reasonable and billed in accordance with FAR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures at the time they are incurred.

h. Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees: In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements and allows the offeror to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives base labor rates, fringe, and overall benefits will be evaluated and compared against current standards. Lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may impair the offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees. This may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements which may lead to rejection of the proposal.

3.0 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 verify information provided in offeror’s proposal and rated under applicable factor/subfactor.

4.0 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.