Guidance_SSC_Section_M_11_Feb_14.docx

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

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 (IAW) 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, Past Performance, and Cost/Price Factors. Contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW 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 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 Guidance Subsystem Support Contract (Guidance SSC); however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

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

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

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

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, Paragraph 7.3.4.2.

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: Transition Subfactor 2: Guidance Subsystem Assessment Subfactor 3: Sustaining Engineering Subfactor 4: Awardable Task (Instrumentation Wafer Replacement Program) Subfactor 5: 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), 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 Technical Factor

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 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 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, 3, and 4 will receive one of the color ratings described in DOD Source Selection Procedures as shown in Table 1 – Technical Ratings excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical Factor.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

1) Technical Subfactor 5 Program Management Support will be evaluated as Acceptable/Unacceptable described in DOD Source Selection Procedures 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 Guidance Subsystem support requirements.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

c. Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), 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 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: Transition (PWS 1.6.3.1.3)

The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the offeror’s Transition strategy and how well it meets or exceeds the PWS requirements to transfer responsibilities from the Partial Bridge Contract (PBC) to the Guidance SSC/Government while demonstrating with explicit evidence the full capability and experience their team possesses for performing transition efforts, including exit criteria, on a noninterference basis. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate the use of the approach (process/methodologies) and capabilities for successfully transitioning efforts of similar magnitude and complexity and how it applies to the Guidance Subsystem requirements in the following areas:

a. Schedule

b. GFP

c. Data Rights

d. Sustainment Tasks

e. Facilities

f. Risk Identification and Mitigation

2.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Guidance Subsystem Assessment (PWS 1.6.3.2.2, 1.6.3.2.3, and 1.6.3.2.7) The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the offeror’s approach and how well it meets or exceeds the PWS requirements to assess the Guidance Subsystem while demonstrating with explicit evidence the full capability and experience their team possesses for performing Guidance Subsystem Assessments. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate the use of the approach (process/methodologies) and capabilities on successful application to the ICBM Guidance Subsystem or successful use on efforts of similar magnitude and complexity in equivalent strategic inertial-guided nuclear ballistic missile systems, and how it applies to the Guidance Subsystem requirements in the following areas:

a. Nuclear Hardness and Survivability

b. Accuracy

c. Anomaly Resolution

2.1.1.3 Subfactor 3: Sustaining Engineering (PWS 1.6.3.3.1, 1.6.3.3.2, 1.6.3.3.3, 1.6.3.3.5, 1.6.3.3.6, and 1.6.3.3.16) The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the offeror’s approach and how well it meets or exceeds the PWS requirements to sustain the Guidance Subsystem while demonstrating with explicit evidence the full capability and experience their team possesses for performing Guidance Subsystem Sustaining Engineering. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate the use of the approach (process/ methodologies) and capabilities on successful application to the ICBM Guidance Subsystem or successful use on efforts of similar magnitude and complexity in equivalent strategic inertial-guided nuclear ballistic missile systems, and how it applies to the Guidance Subsystem requirements in the following areas:

a. Integration

b. Test and Evaluation

c. Hardware

d. Software

e. Configuration Management

2.1.1.4 Subfactor 4: Awardable Task (Instrumentation Wafer Replacement Program (IWRP)) (PWS 1.6.6 Attachment H, Statement of Objectives (SOO)) The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the offeror’s approach and how well it meets or exceeds the PWS requirements to develop, integrate, test, and produce new missile aerospace vehicle equipment that will replace the current Minuteman III Mod 7 Instrumentation Section, Signal Conditioner Monitoring Group (SCMG), and other flight test unique components/cabling, utilizing today’s technology. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate the knowledge, ability, and how it applies to the Guidance Subsystem requirements in the following areas:

a. Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW)

b. Contract Work Breakdown Structure

c. Schedule

d. Proposed conceptual design

2.1.1.5 Subfactor 5: 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 for capability. Risk shall be evaluated, using the ratings listed in Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings for each of the following Guidance Subsystem Program Management Support requirements:

a. Data Rights

b. Team Structure

c. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

An Unacceptable Rating for one or more of the Program Management Support elements will result in an Unacceptable Rating for the Program Management Support Subfactor. A Technical Risk Rating of High on one or more of the Program Management Support elements will result in a Subfactor 5 Technical Risk Rating of High. A Technical Risk rating of Moderate on one or more of the Program Management Support elements will result in a Subfactor 5 Technical Risk rating of Moderate. If all Technical Risk Ratings for the elements are Low, the Program Management Support Subfactor 5 Technical Risk Rating will be rated as Low.

2.1.1.5.1 Data Rights (PWS 1.6.4.1)

The offeror is considered to be acceptable when the Data Rights element of Section J Attachment 1, GRID Tables 1 through 4 of the solicitation are completed correctly IAW DFARS Clauses 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, and 252.227-7017.

2.1.1.5.2 Team Structure (PWS 1.6.4.2)

The Team Structure element is considered to be acceptable when the proposed approach clearly demonstrates the team has comprehensive knowledge, capability, skills, and experience required to perform Guidance Subsystem support requirements by providing the following:

a. Team organization with chart(s)

b. Team roles and responsibilities

c. Contractual agreements (Section L Attachment 5, Guidance SSC Team List, Roles And Responsibilities)

d. Organizational Manning Matrix (Section L Attachment 6, Guidance Organizational Manning Matrix)

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

2.1.2. Past Performance Factor

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, Paragraph 2.1b. 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, Paragraph 2.1b. 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 and ICBMs. 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 IAW 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. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. 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 Cost/Price Factor

2.1.3.1 Pricing

The Pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Price Reasonableness, Realism, Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). 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 Fully Burdened (Less Profit/Fee) Labor Rate Not To Exceed (NTE) Matrix (Section J, Attachment 4) used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding. The notional hours 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 IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404‐1. Generally adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring price reasonableness. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market and its affordability. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price.

c. Realism. The Government will evaluate the realism of each offerors’ proposed Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) CLINs and Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) 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 offerors lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactors. Proposal Analysis Techniques found in FAR 15.404-1 will be utilized. If the Government feels the offeror’s probable cost differs from its proposed cost the Government reserves the right to utilize the probable cost for purposes of best value IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2). It is anticipated that the same burdened base rates (less profit/fee) for all cost type rates will be identical to the fixed price type rates in the Labor Rate 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 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.

e. Awardable Tasks. The cost and technical teams will perform an integrated assessment on the Awardable Task contained under all Instrumentation Wafer Replacement Program (IWRP) CLINs. The Government will evaluate reasonableness, realism and balance (as appropriate) as outlined above on the aforementioned CLINs. For the FFP IWRP production CLINs (0151, 0201, 0251, 0301, 0351) the offeror is highly encouraged to show a learning curve price reduction for production years, the government may consider this as more advantageous for award.

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

1) CPAF (CLINs X001, X051) at the proposed estimated cost plus Award Fee for the base and all option periods.

2) FFP (see section B and the CLIN Pricing Matrix) at the proposed fixed price for the base and all option periods.

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

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

5) CPIF (CLIN 0101) at proposed estimated cost plus target fee for the base and all option periods.

6) FFP (CLIN 0102) at Government stipulated performance/delivery fee of 4% of target cost of CLIN 0101 above.

7) FFP Production CLINs (0151, 0201, 0251, 0301, 0351) at the unit price multiplied by a quantity of four (4).

8) FFP Production Incentive CLINs (0152, 0202, 0252, 0302, 0352) at 10% of the unit price of the respective Production CLINs (0151, 0201, 0251, 0301, 0351) multiplied by a quantity of four (4).

9) Labor Rate NTE (Not To Exceed) Matrix (Section J Attachment 4) rates will be established for pricing all future contract actions. These rates will be multiplied by Governmentgenerated 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.

g. 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.

h. 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 IAW FAR 31 at the time they are incurred.

i. Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees: IAW 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 REVIEWS AND VISITS

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal and/or oral presentation.

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.