MPSCIIISectionM.pdf

PART IV- REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations; however price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS 215.3), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFFARS 5315.3). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR

Part 9, 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.

Only proposals found to be technically acceptable will be considered for tradeoff. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor. Failure to meet any requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet 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 technically acceptable, higher rated past performance of higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA 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 Award without Discussions

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary.

1.3 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 (ENs) 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 Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm

The Government intends to award one contract for the Mission Planning Support Contract III (MPSC III);

however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

1.5 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are must 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Program Management

Subfactor 2: Support of MPSSF

Subfactor 3: System Support Representatives

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Factor 1 (Technical) is rated as acceptable/unacceptable. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are relatively equal in importance. Past

Performance and Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 2 (Past Performance) being most important, Factor 3 (Price) is last in importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

3.0 TECHNICAL FACTOR

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. The ratings are described in

DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method, excerpted below.

file://///Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15304 http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

Any subfactor, or portion of a subfactor, rated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals rated to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Program Management

Subfactor 2: Support of MPSSF

Subfactor 3: System Support Representatives

3.1 Subfactor 1: Program Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed program management approach for human resources, information assurance, security clearance, OCONUS personnel, and transition as required by the

Performance Work Statement (PWS).

This subfactor is met when the evaluation of the offeror’s proposal conveys a technically sound approach that meets the requirements in the PWS and substantiates all of the following:

3.1.1 Human Resources – The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach that demonstrates, through explicit evidence and examples, the processes for recruiting, hiring, training, and staffing, including the Staffing Table in Attachment L-10 (PWS.2.1.1.1). The recruiting and hiring approach must demonstrate, through explicit evidence and examples, the offeror’s ability to hire and retain qualified personnel. Training approach must demonstrate to the government the offeror’s ability to train personnel on applicable position specific duties. The contractor must complete the Staffing Table in Attachment L-10. The table must identify how the offeror proposes to organize and staff all positions/functions in accordance with the requirements/tasks in the PWS.

3.1.2 Cybersecurity and Information Assurance (IA)– The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach that demonstrates the offeror’s ability to provide cybersecurity and maintain certifications IAW the PWS and the current versions of DoD and Air Force Information Assurance requirements (including, but not limited to, DoDI 8500.01 (Mar 14, 2014), DoDI 8510.01 (March 12, 2014; Incorporating Change 1, May 24, 2016) and DoD 8570.01-M (December 19, 2005; Incorporating

Change 4, Nov 10, 2015 (PWS 2.2.1.1.1, 2.2.1.1.2, 2.11.3, including all sub-paragraphs, 2.11.4.1 and

2.12.2.1)

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.1.3 Security Clearance – The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach that demonstrates the offeror’s practices and procedures for obtaining and maintaining required security clearances for personnel and facilities IAW applicable DoD and USAF directives and instructions

(including, but not limited to 5 CFR 732 and Executive Order 12968).. (PWS 2.1.1.5, 2.10.4.2, 2.11.1.3)

3.1.4 OCONUS Personnel - The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach that demonstrates the offeror’s ability to place, train (specific country and theater) and support permanent and temporary personnel in OCONUS locations. This includes the processes for obtaining various documentation required by the US Department of State, Department of Defense, and host countries (i.e.

visas and country clearances, Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs), as well as Technical Expert Status

Agreements (TESAs), and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITARs) exemptions) (PWS 2.1.1.6 and 2.10.1.3).

3.1.5 Transition – The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach that demonstrates the offeror’s strategy to transition all contract activities and personnel from the incumbent to the awardee within 30 calendar days of the start of the initial task order. This includes transition of

Government Furnished Property (GFP)/Government Furnished Equipment and personnel, if applicable, within the transition period (PWS 6.1).

3.2 Subfactor 2: Support of Mission Planning System Support Facility (MPSSF)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offerors proposed approach for support of the Mission Planning

System Support Facility to include Mission Planning Central, deficiency investigation process, operational user and SSR training, and fielding events as required by the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

This subfactor is met when the evaluation of the offeror’s proposal conveys a technically sound approach that meets the requirements in the PWS and substantiates all of the following:

3.2.1 Mission Planning Central (MPC) Support - The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach that demonstrates the offeror’s proposed plan to support and maintain MPC operations IAW PWS 2.11. This plan must include the maintenance of the existing functionality (PWS

2.11.5 including sub-paragraphs), establishment of an Integrated Product Team (IPT) to manage Change

Enhancement Requests (CERs) (PWS 2.11.1.8), provide MPC system software security (PWS 2.11.3 including sub-paragraphs), and provide MPC training to users, developers, testers, and program managers (PWS 2.11.1.4).

3.2.2 Deficiency Investigation Process – The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach that demonstrates the offeror’s proposed plan to identify Mission Planning Environment

(MPE) deficiencies and manage the process IAW T.O. 00-35D-54 (August 1, 2015) and the PWS

2.3.1.1.2-4. The approach shall address the performance of Screening Point duties IAW the PWS

2.5.1.6 and TO 00-35D-54, and the specific processes and personnel used to identify potential deficiencies, report deficiencies to the appropriate government personnel within 24 hours for Category I and 48 hours for Category II deficiencies, and shall provide an acceptable centrally accessible tool for tracking the status of the reported problem to closure. Mission Planning has a waiver for the Joint

Deficiency Reporting System (JDRS), and the current tool is the Enterprise Deficiency Reporting (EDR) tool located on MPC, however the contractor may propose an alternate solution provided it meets the requirements of T.O. 00-35D-54.

3.2.3 Operational User and SSR Training – The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach that demonstrates the offeror’s proposed plan for developing and delivering training plans for existing and new MPEs to applicable operational users and SSRs IAW PWS 2.2.1.3.10, 2.2.1.3.12, 2.3.1.1.5, 2.4 (including sub-paragraphs), 2.7.1.4, 2.10.1.2, 2.10.1.3, 2.10.1.3.1, 2.10.1.7.1, 2.10.1.9, and 2.11.1.4. The approach shall address the Mission Planning Training (MPT) involvement throughout the MPE development and testing process and the delivery of the training in conjunction with operational test of a new MPE.

3.3 Subfactor 3: System Support Representatives (SSRs)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offerors proposed approach for support of System Support

Representatives to include worldwide support, deployed units, mission planning environment configuration control, and operational tests as required by the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

This subfactor is met when the evaluation of the offeror’s proposal conveys a technically sound approach that meets the requirements in the PWS and substantiates all of the following:

3.3.1 Worldwide Support – The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach that demonstrates the offeror’s proposed plan for worldwide support for a minimum of 70 geographically separated locations. The approach must demonstrate the offeror’s ability to ensure SSRs at each location are performing duties, as required by the PWS 2.2.1.3.

3.3.2 Support for Deployed Units – The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach that demonstrates the offeror’s proposed plan for supporting activities required prior to, and during, a unit’s deployment. The offeror must include a proposed approach for “building” MPEs that will be taken by the unit during the deployment, updating systems while they are deployed (to include the use of organic government personnel or the offeror’s personnel, if authorized by the government), and how the unit can begin getting user support for mission planning within two (2) hours of initial contact, if the SSR is not deployed with the unit IAW PWS 2.2.1.3.12. User support may include, but is not limited to, contacting the MPSSF.

3.3.3 Mission Planning Environment (MPE) Configuration Control – The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach that demonstrates the offeror’s proposed process to maintain configuration control for all fielded and certified MPEs IAW PWS 2.2.1.3.1 and 2.2.1.3.2. The plan must address: the communication between the applicable MPSSF functions and SSRs (PWS 2.7.1.4, 2.9.1.6); use of MPE Letters and MAJCOM Certification Letters to ensure MPEs are functional and related systems remain interoperable (PWS 2.2.1.3.1, 2.2.1.3.8, 2.5.1.2, 2.5.1.5, 2.10.1.8); SSRs implementation and maintenance procedures and practices for loading new or updated mission planning data (i.e. charts, mapping updates and aeronautical information) IAW PWS 2.2.1.3.8.

3.3.4 Support for Operational Test – The Government will evaluate for a sound, feasible, and compliant approach to the offeror’s proposed plan for SSR participation in operational test events IAW PWS

2.2.1.3.15. The plan must address how the SSR will be trained on the systems administration for the new MPE prior to the test event. (PWS 2.4.1.6, 2.4.1.8, 2.4.1.18, 2.7.1.4, 2.10.1.4, 2.10.1.7.1)

4.0 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTOR

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

4.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD

Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

4.2 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 Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in paragraph 2.2. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to 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 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), 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.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATING METHOD

Adjectival Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

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

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

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

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

The offeror will use the PPI Tool described in Attachment L-1 for submittal of past performance information. The offeror may submit three (3) relevant contracts for the prime offeror, and up to three (3) for each key partner and / or each subcontractor.

4.3 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 (with at least one full year of performance history) or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.4 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 Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference paragraph 2.2). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving systems that are similar to or greater in scope and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Consideration will be given to scope (service similarity, diversity of locations/tasks, and contract scope and type), magnitude, and complexity.

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. Past performance regarding partners/subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated equal to the principal offeror. Contracts, whether the offeror acted as a prime or a subcontractor, will be rated equally provided the offeror directly performed the relevant work. The past performance information provided by the offeror and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4) and Section M Table 1:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope, magnitude and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The Government may or may not use all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude and complexity:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities of the Past

Performance effort and the services required in the PWS. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining scope of past performance.

1. Ability to hire and retain a geographically separated workforce providing worldwide hardware/software support

2. Ability to place, train and support personnel overseas

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities of the Past Performance effort and the services required in the PWS. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining magnitude of past performance.

1. Number of geographically separated locations supported

2. Number of OCONUS locations supported

3. Number of systems supported

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities of the Past Performance effort and the services required in the PWS. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining complexity of past performance.

1. Ability to provide a workforce requiring Secret, Top Secret, and TS/SCI security clearances

2. Ability to perform cybersecurity IAW DODI 8500.01, 14 Mar 2014, or previous version (including

Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT) IAW DODI 8510.01, 12 Mar 2014, or previous version) with a certified workforce IAW DOD 8570.01-M, change 4, 10

Nov 2015 or previous version

4.5 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 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. 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 levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Rating

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/

BLUE

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/

PURPLE

During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY(S)/

GREEN

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/

YELLOW

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY

(U)/RED

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered, corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

4.6 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 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. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral” for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance resulting in a rating of

“Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” may be considered more advantageous to the

Government than a "Neutral 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.

5.0 PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

5.1 Evaluation Criteria

The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Price Factor will be (1)Reasonableness, (2)Balance, and (3)Total

Evaluated Price (TEP).

5.2 Reasonableness

The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

5.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

5.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The offeror’s TEP will be computed using Section J-Pricing Table file and will account for the 6-year period of performance and FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services multiplied by government-determined notional quantities and locations, including Not -To-Exceed (NTE) prices. Offeror’s shall follow the Section-J

Pricing Table “Instructions” tab when completing the Pricing Table. The TEP is for award purposes only and does not become a contractually binding amount after contract award; however, the unit prices within the

Pricing Table will be contractually binding. All notional quantities and locations will not be disclosed to the offerors. The offeror’s TEP will be the sum of the following:

5.4.1. The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLIN 0001 utilizing offeror proposed prices multiplied by government determined notional quantities and locations, including Not -To-Exceed (NTE) prices.

5.4.2. The Cost Reimbursable (CR) Travel (CLIN 0002) and Material (CLIN 0003) will not be evaluated as part of the TEP but will be reviewed for price reasonableness at the task order level. The Government will establish a ceiling price for these CLINs on each Task/Delivery Order and will verify that all travel is billed in accordance with FAR 31.205-46.

5.4.3 The Not Separately Priced (NSP) Data CLIN 0004 costs shall be included in the other proposed prices.

5.5 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.

5.6 Approved Accounting System

As portions of the work issued under this contract will be other than fixed price the offeror and all related entities (e.g. subcontractors, teaming partners, interdivisional orders, etc) that will be issued other than fixed price type work shall have Government approved accounting systems. Failure to obtain Government approval of all necessary accounting systems may result in the offeror being found ineligible for award.