RFP_Attachment_15_Section_M_R01_04Dec18.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 1

SSP Attachment 4 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: 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) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. A hybrid approach will be utilized by evaluating some factors using trade-offs, while other factors (as identified) will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract(s) 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 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; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. Evaluation Methodology: 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 Capability Factor, all subfactors are of approximately equal importance. The Government’s intention is to initially evaluate each offeror’s Technical proposal. For those offeror’s which are deemed technically acceptable, the Government will then proceed with the Past Performance and Cost/Price evaluations. Therefore, the Government considers the Technical Factor as the most important.

IAW 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 source selection decision.

The Government intends to award one contract for the T-38 PCIII Phase III and TRIM programs. However, the Government reserves the right to award more, fewer or no contract(s) at all if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government's best interest. The SSA will consider the Government's expected volume of work, available funding, adequate competition, and the availability of best value proposals.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any aspect of an Offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal is not considered correctable, the Offeror will be eliminated from the competitive range. This determination will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.001.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 2 determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306 and as supplemented. If the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the CO, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

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.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP Volume I will be evaluated for overall completeness and any exceptions taken to the terms and conditions of the solicitation/attachments.

1. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents (Statement of Work (SOW), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Solicitation, SOW (including attachments), TDP, CDRLs, and has proved/demonstrated a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

2. Technical Factor

2.1 Subfactor A: Parts Manufacturing and Procurement Plan

2.1.1 This subfactor is met when the written proposal provides a detailed parts manufacturing and procurement plan that demonstrates the offeror’s ability to produce parts compliant with the Technical Data Package (TDP).

The subfactor is met when the plan clearly portrays the facilities, equipment, manufacturing tooling, capabilities and plan layout pertaining to processes associated with the manufacturing and integration of the PCIII/TRIM structural parts/kits and fastener parts/kits. The subfactor is met when the offeror lists their quoted sources for all required forgings and extruded parts from approved sources. This subfactor is met when the offeror lists sources for all items in the BOM, or a plan to obtain an alternate part and source. For those items where a source is not available, the offeror shall provide a plan to obtain an alternate part and source, and why the offeror deems the alternate part and source as suitable.

2.1.2 For the parts listed in Table 2, the subfactor is met when the written proposal provides a more detailed manufacturing plan to include:

a. Obtain required materials with applicable material certifications

b. Design/build/obtain specialized tooling to aid in manufacturing of parts

c. Machine parts

d. Form/contour/manipulate large and small extrusions and unformed stock

e. Post process (i.e.; heat treat, peen, anodize, plate, coat)

f. Application of metrology and inspection for dimensional conformity

g. Perform Nondestructive testing

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 3

Table 2 - Evaluated Components Part Number Nomenclature

2-11756-523/-524 Bulkhead Assembly at FS 388.75 3-11493 -1/-2 Dorsal Shim 3-11613-19 Upper Skin, FS 445.00 to 531.00 40S101-100 Tapered Shim 2-11668-5 Bolt

2.2 Subfactor B: Drawing Interpretation

2.2.1 This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s written technical proposal provides a narrative with illustrations that adequately demonstrates the ability to correctly interpret the 3-11611 drawing (located in TDP) and associated dimension data for the CFS 505.075 Former Assembly, P/N 3-11611-503.

2.2.1.1 The proposal correctly identifies the distance between the trace of the Firewall Moldline on CFS

505.075 and the Fuselage Moldline at a distance of 12.5 inches outboard of the airplane centerline.

2.2.1.2 The proposal correctly identifies the number of cooling holes, the corresponding diameter, and their locations above the Horizontal Reference Line (HRL) in the 3-11611-31/-32 Formers for this assembly configuration.

2.2.2 This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal provides a narrative with illustrations that adequately demonstrates the ability to correctly interpret drawing 3-11805 located in the Technical Data Package.

2.2.2.1 The proposal correctly identifies the configuration to be produced and identification of the components of the 3-11805-49 assembly.

2.2.2.2 The proposal correctly identifies the dimension (in inches) from the bottom edge of the doubler to the Horizontal Reference Line.

2.2.3 This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal provides a narrative with illustrations that adequately demonstrates the ability to correctly interpret drawing 3-11613 located in the Technical Data Package.

2.2.3.1 The proposal correctly identifies of the final skin thicknesses required to make for the -19 configuration.

2.2.3.2 The proposal correctly identifies number and location of all cutouts (including circular) and provide dimensions for each on the -19 configuration.

2.2.4 This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal provides a narrative with illustrations that adequately demonstrates the ability to correctly interpret the 2-11668 drawing (located in TDP) and associated specifications. Please identify and explain how the answer was determined for the following:

2.2.4.1 The proposal correctly identifies the minimum allowable distance from the forging flow lines between the intersection of the longitudinal axis of the bolt and the approximate transverse axis of the flow lines to the bearing surface of the bolt.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 4

2.2.4.2 The proposal correctly identifies the minimum number of fatigue cycles that should be conducted in the fatigue test for a passing condition.

2.2.4.3 The proposal correctly identifies the required number of samples for fatigue testing for a lot or batch size of 30.

2.3 Subfactor C: Program Management

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal provides a supply chain management approach that clearly identifies the supply chain process and logistical capacity for obtaining structural modification parts/kits components. The proposal shall clearly identify/provide:

2.3.1 Resource Management

The contractor’s organizational structure which identifies key personnel. The proposal shall clearly document the primary roles and lines of responsibility, and technical interface with subject matter experts. The proposal shall illustrate all planned subcontractor relationships to include name and CAGE code with a letter of intent between prime and subcontractor agreeing to be on contract within 90 days after contract award.

The proposal shall include a draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that details the offeror’s proposed process for material purchase (to include long lead items), first article production (manufacture, inspection, and testing) and a manufacturing plan to meet full-rate production. A detailed IMS depicting program execution from contract award to completion of all deliverables. The IMS shall address lead times for the delivery of First Article Test components and subsequent production kits. Include PCIII, TRIM, and Fastener Kits. Assume a contract award of March 2019 with a need date of the first kit(s) of May 2021. First Article Testing takes between 30 to 120 days. The kit(s) must be FAT approved and ready 60 days prior to need date to allow for transportation.

2.3.2 Subcontractor Management

A clear and feasible approach to managing all subcontractors, partners, and sub-tier subcontractors/partners to meet quality system requirements, as well as supply chain partners and the process in which these partners are evaluated and selected. This includes supplier’s commitments to adequately demonstrate their ability to achieve Government desired full rate production.

2.3.3 Risk Management

A complete description of risk management processes, explaining the criteria, methods, and procedures that would be used to identify the critical items associated with the implementation of this contract.

3. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor. Technical proposals which receive an unacceptable rating, may be considered unawardable.

Table 3 - Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 5 includes, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform at least 20% of the manufacturing and/or assembly work by part quantity or weight. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past Five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume.

Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, total quantity produced/managed, and complexity/type of deliverables for each order in the series.

a. The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation

b. The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 6

c. The Government shall add up the total quantity produced/managed for each order to calculate the Total Quantity Produced/Managed for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation

d. The Government shall look at the complexity/type of deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Complexity/Type of Deliverables for the series of orders

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced/Managed, and Complexity/Type of Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope.

These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced/Managed, and Complexity/Type of Deliverables of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4.1 below.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

• 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.

An example for each relevancy rating has been provided below:

A rating of VERY RELEVANT will be the result of an assessment in which the previous contract(s) were essentially equivalent in magnitude, effort as well as complexity. For this solicitation, an equivalent contract would be one that included the use of legacy 2D drawings defined by loft data to fabricate structural aircraft parts/kits and fastener parts/kits in a similar quantity. An offer’s performance may considered in aggregate in addition to an effort-by-effort basis. As an example, if three SOMEWHAT RELEVANT contracts were performed concurrently, they could be assessed in aggregate and as a result be assessed as VERY RELEVANT.

For a rating of RELEVANT to be assessed, the previous contract(s) must have included, at a minimum, the use of legacy 2D drawings to fabricate structural aircraft parts/kits and fastener parts/kits of a mostly similar magnitude of effort and complexity and scale.

A rating of SOMEWHAT RELEVANT will be awarded for successful contract completion for aircraft parts that were defined and subsequently built using only 2D drawings. There will have had to have been at least some of the magnitude of effort and complexity this solicitation requires.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 7

For a rating of NOT RELEVANT examples may include such things as: providing contractual examples with a lesser experience than those skills and experience noted in the above definitions.

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced/Managed, and Complexity/Type of Deliverables, etc. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, T-38 PCIII Phase III and Talon Repair Inspection and Maintenance (TRIM). They are as follows:

4.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

• Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable; however, the offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against the Government’s estimate.

• Total Period of Performance: Performing contracts of similar length o Example: 3-10 Years

• Total Quantity Produced/Managed: Performing contracts of similar quantities produced or managed and at similar levels of complexity:

o Example: PCIII has 43 kits with 268 items per kit. TRIM has 169 kits with 115 items per kit.

• Complexity/Type of Deliverables: Performing contracts with similar Deliverables.

o Example: Part Modeling and Manufacturing Similar levels of machining and manufacturing processes Interpretation of legacy 2D drawings and loft data

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 8

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.” A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSEB may recommend and the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating. Past Performance proposals which receive a rating of Limited Confidence or No Confidence, may be considered unawardable.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractor’s) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

E. Volume IV, Price Factor

1. The Pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Price Factor are: (1) Price Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and (3)

TEP. The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. For the Price Factor, the Government will use the submitted TEP Pricing Matrix to calculate the TEP. The TEP will be computed and provided to the SSA for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award. However, all offeror proposed unit prices and labor rates in the TEP will be fixed and contractually binding.

Evaluation of option periods or ordering periods will not obligate the Government to exercise such option or place an order during each period.

1.1 Reasonableness: The determination of reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed CLINs with the exception of the Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs (X029, X052 and X055), the Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLINs (X028 and X051), and the Reserved CLINS (X020, and X048 through X050). The CR CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative CO. All other CLINs will be reviewed for reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404. It is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy reasonableness for this effort. 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. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

1.2 Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit CLIN pricing.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 9

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. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1.3 Total Evaluated Price: The TEP will be calculated for award purposes only and will not be contractually binding; however, the proposed unit prices and fully-burdened labor rates will be contractually binding for future orders. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s populated TEP Pricing Matrix and Labor Rates Worksheet.

1.3.1 The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the following:

1.3.1.1 CLINs X001 through X020, X022 through X027, X030 through X047, X054, and X057 through X058: Multiplying Government-generated notional quantities against each offeror’s proposed unit/total prices for all ordering periods. The Government-generated notional quantities SHALL NOT be disclosed to offerors at any time.

1.3.1.2 CLIN X053: Multiplying maximum incentive percentage against each offeror’s proposed total prices for a schedule incentive total, as applied to the designated number of TRIM Aircraft Parts Kits. Please refer to the TRIM Incentive Plan for more details.

1.3.1.3 CLIN X056: Multiplying Government-generated notional hours against each offeror’s proposed fully-burdened labor rates for all ordering periods. The Government generated notional hours and labor distribution SHALL NOT be disclosed to offerors at any time.

1.3.2 The Cost Reimbursable Travel CLINs (X029 & X052) and Contractor Acquired Property CLIN (X055) will be normalized at zero dollars for all offerors. The Government shall verify that all associated costs are reasonable at the time of task order award and billed in accordance with FAR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures at the time they are incurred.

2. Approval of Accounting System: As portions of this contract are other-than fixed price, the Government will evaluate whether the offeror has a Government approved accounting system along with all subcontractors who will be issued other-than fixed price work under other-than fixed price CLINs. Failure to possess or obtain Government approval of the accounting system may result in disqualification from award. If offerors and/or subcontractors do not currently have Government approval of their accounting system, it may be subject to a Pre- Award Accounting System Audit.

3. A no bid or an omitted unit price/rate(s) may result in an incomplete price submission and is therefore unawardable.

4. An offeror whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced, may not be considered for award.

SSP Attachment 4