ASSP Section M Draft Amendment 1.docx

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (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 – Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. 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 the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced Offerors.

1.1.1. 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 Board (SSEB) 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.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at acquisition.gov.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any technical proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency. The correction potential shall be based on the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet Government requirements.

1.4. Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor One Technical, Factor Two Past Performance, Factor Three Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on:

a. initial proposal evaluation results

b. after discussions

c. for efficiency.

If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.5. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions at its discretion. It is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. If during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if Offerors will be required to include EN responses in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how Offerors will submit FPRs. Offerors’ responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offerors’ responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.6. Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned. The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase. 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.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, other than those identified as factors and subfactors. Requirements included in the factors and subfactors will be evaluated in accordance with the process described for each factor and subfactor. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

Offerors shall identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and shall provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions as unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor One: Technical Subfactor One: Program Management Subfactor Two: Contractor Logistics Support Subfactor Three: DMSMS Management Subfactor Four: Block Upgrade Process & Software Applications Support Factor Two: Past Performance Factor Three: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor Two (Past Performance), is considered significantly more important than Factor Three (Price).

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology:

Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each Offeror in determining the competitive range. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in section 2.2 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in section 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in section 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will consider the Past Performance ratings as significantly more important than price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which Offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2. Factor One – Technical

The Technical evaluation will be based on each Offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each Offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each Offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, render the Offeror unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

2.2.1. Subfactor One: Program Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Program Management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L. The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements.

a. Staffing Approach: To be acceptable, the Offeror’s approach shall demonstrate an understanding of staffing requirements for successful program performance, including a sufficient quantity of qualified personnel to meet the requirements for COMBS personnel, Field Service Representatives (FSR) and Courseware Subject Matter Experts IAW PWS sections/paragraphs 3.14, 3.15, 8.1, 8.2, 9.1.1,E, 9.1.2.C and 9.1.4.

c. Transition Approach: To be acceptable, the Offeror’s approach shall demonstrate an adequate and acceptable transition schedule, including appropriate transition period tasks and risk mitigations for high-risk areas, to successfully accomplish transition requirements IAW PWS section 9.1. Transition-In period will start at contract award and CLS period will start approximately 90 days after contract award.

1. Transition Schedule: To be acceptable, the offeror shall provide a critical path schedule for the 90-day transition period to include a timeline for inventory transition IAW PWS 9.1. The events on the schedule timeline shall depict the proposed tasks in the 0 to 30, 31 to 60 and 61 to 90 day transition periods. The offeror shall describe high risks associated with the transition and their approach to managing and mitigating associated risks.

2. Phase-In: To be acceptable, the Offeror shall provide verifiable Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) and/or Letters Of Intent (LOI) IAW PWS paragraph 9.1.11.A to successfully complete performance requirements for parts/component availability, including procurement processes and inventory status for all Appendix A and B parts.

3. Repair Stations: To be acceptable, the Offeror shall provide verifiable evidence of appropriately certified repair stations sufficient for contract performance. If the Offeror plans to utilize “contractor-certified” repair facilities, the Offeror shall clearly explain the certification process followed. Offeror’s shall demonstrate an approach to maintaining quality standards at their utilized repair stations.

d. Small Business Participation: To be acceptable, the Offeror shall provide a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) that meets requirements of ITO Attachment 3.0. The Offeror’s proposal small business minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) shall be 15% IAW PWS section 3.9. Large businesses shall submit a subcontracting plan IAW FAR 19.7, tailored to this contract effort, however, it will not be evaluated at this time.

2.2.2. Subfactor Two: Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed CLS approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L. The Government will evaluate proposals based on the following criteria:

a. Supply Chain Management: To be acceptable, the Offeror’s supply chain management system and processes shall be sufficient for successful contract performance including forecasting, demand planning, and inventory control to maintain parts availability metrics IAW PWS sections 3.10, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 9.0, 10.0, 12.0, 13.4, Appendices A, B and G.

b. Facilities: To be acceptable, the Offeror’s facilities shall be suitable and sufficient to house and maintain the Systems Integration Lab (SIL) and the Operational Flight Trainer (OFT-1) IAW PWS sections 5.13, 5.14 and information specified in the Bidders Library. The Offeror’s floorplans, electrical systems and environmental system shall be sufficient to meet all equipment requirements.

c. Analysis, Reliability and Maintainability: To be acceptable, the Offeror’s approach shall fully demonstrate their ability to successfully track and manage Trend Analysis, Reliability and Maintainability of aircraft to ensure Services Summaries and Operational Metrics performance requirements are met. Examples shall demonstrate the Offeror’s competency in data collection and analysis processes to meet fleet requirements greater then 100 aircraft IAW PWS paragraphs 4.3.4, 5.2.1, Sec 10 and Sec 12.

2.2.3. Subfactor Three: Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Management The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed DMSMS sustainment approach. Offerors shall present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. The Government will evaluate the Offerors based on the following criteria:

a. DMSMS Program: To be acceptable, the Offeror’s proposed DMSMS Program shall be sufficient to meet all performance requirements outlined in PWS section 5.10. The Offeror’s avionics examples shall fully demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully monitor, predict and assist in the mitigation of parts obsolescence to meet all contract performance requirements.

2.2.4. Subfactor Four: Block Upgrade Process & Software Applications Support

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Block Upgrade Process & Software Applications Support approach. Offerors shall present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. The Offeror shall provide evidence of three or more years of experience in software applications. The Government will evaluate the Offerors based on the following criteria:

1. Software Development: To be acceptable, the Offeror’s software development approach shall be defined and be sufficient to meet performance requirements outlined in PWS sections 4, 5.7 and 7. The Offeror shall provide evidence that their software development processes and systems are established, in-use, and the company has verifiable evidence of experience using the processes and tools they have defined.

1. Data Tracking: To be acceptable, the Offeror’s approach, including systems and processes, shall be sufficient for managing and tracking software deficiency reports and vulnerability risks to meet performance requirements. The offeror shall fully demonstrate verifiable evidence of experience using the systems and processes they have defined.

1. Certifications: To be acceptable, the Offeror’s current and verifiable certifications shall meet CMMI, ISO 9001, and/or equivalency standards.

2.3. Factor Two – Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.1. Ratings:

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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 Offerors 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 Offerors will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

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

2.3.2 Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offerors’ demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offerors’ recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offerors’ Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Questionnaires, Supplier Performance Risk Systems (SPRS), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offerors’ past performance.

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety will be evaluated for past performance.

2.3.2.2. 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 Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offerors’ (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)), as defined in paragraph 4.3.1 of Section L) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. 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 Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information submitted by Offerors along with information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

VERY RELEVANT (VR)

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

RELEVANT (R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT (NR)

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 utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the COMBS requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to scope:

1. CLS COMBS/FSR support management at multiple sites.

2. Avionics Block and Software upgrades for comparable T-38 fleet size.

3. DMSMS issues for comparable T-38 fleet size.

4. Subcontract Management.

5. Management of Joint Programs (i.e. USAF and Navy).

6. Time Compliance Technical Order (TCTO)/Technical Directive (TD) Management.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

1. Dollar value of aircraft avionics parts managed.

2. Size of aircraft avionics piece parts and LRU inventory managed.

3. Size of aircraft fleet(s).

4. Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform.

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the technical subfactors.

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed- Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the COMBS requirement.

2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offerors’ Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as, the PPIRS, CPARS, Questionnaires, SPRS, DCMA, and commercial sources. The Government will also review ratings and supporting narratives, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with rating officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information which the Government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality. 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 when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

EXCEPTIONAL (E) (BLUE)

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

Contractor took immediate and effective 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.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.3.3. 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 based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.3.1 above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, 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 relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. 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.

2.4. Factor Three –Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an Offeror’s price may be rejected if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices/rates proposed in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 2 of Section J of the Solicitation).

2.4.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2). The Government may also use other techniques as needed. To evaluate completeness, the Government will confirm all unit prices and rates in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 2 of Section J of the Solicitation) have a dollar amount or rate proposed as applicable. Offerors shall provide rationale if any proposed unit price or rate is entered as zero in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 2 of Section J of the Solicitation).

2.4.2. Balanced Pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by Offerors explaining variances that appear unbalanced, to include rationale for any CLIN price increase greater than 5% from one year to another, or any CLIN price decrease from one year to another.

Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

b) The offer is so unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.4.3. Price Realism

The Government will evaluate proposals for price realism to determine whether proposed prices/rates are based on an adequate understanding of contract requirements and to ensure the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as well as the proposed prices (CLIN X005) CLS, Material Cost Per Flight Hour, do not pose an unacceptable risk to performance. Offerors shall provide sufficient rationale describing how prices/rates were developed (such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed, including cost realism evaluation of cost CLINs IAW FAR 15.404(d). All proposed prices/rates shall be sufficient and adequately proposed to ensure performance is not at an unacceptable risk with prices/rates proposed too low.

2.4.4. Total Evaluated Price:

Pricing proposals will be evaluated for compliance with Section L pricing instructions. The Government will evaluate the TEP of all Offerors, to include the prices/rates for each year within the Basic Period and Option Period I. As illustrated in the Calculation Methodology worksheet of the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 2 of Section J of the Solicitation), the TEP will be calculated as follows:

· The Offeror’s proposed unit prices/rates for each CLIN will be multiplied by the best estimated quantities provided in the Pricing Matrix (Basic Period and Option Period I)

· The Offeror’s proposed labor rates for each labor category (by CLIN) will be multiplied by the estimated labor hours provided in the Pricing Matrix (Basic Period and Option Period I)

· The Offeror’s proposed Material Burden percentage will be multiplied by the estimated material dollar amounts as provided in the Pricing Matrix (Basic Period and Option Period I)

· The Offeror’s proposed unit prices for Year Five of Option I (the last year of the contract) will be utilized for the six-month optional extension for pricing purposes in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services

· The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the resulting total amounts as described above Note: The estimated labor hours and material dollar amounts provided in the Pricing Matrix are only estimates. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

Evaluation of Option I does not obligate the Government to exercise the option.

The TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided in the “Calculation Methodology” worksheet in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 2 of Section J of the Solicitation). These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the Basic Period, the Option and FAR Clause 52.217-8 Option to extend services. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in the Pricing Matrix, (Attachment 2 of Section J of the Solicitation).

2.4.5 Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP)

The government will evaluate the PECP for adequacy and compliance IAW FAR 52.222-46 based on the following:

2.4.5. Pricing Information Requirements/Data Other than Certified Pricing Data If requested by the PCO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable, balanced, and realistic pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced and/or realistic pricing.

2.4.6. Rounding

If any pricing proposal deviates from the format described in Section L, Instructions to Offerors, Section 5.1.8, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP. Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. All dollar amounts shall be rounded to two decimal places.

This methodology also applies to labor rates rounded to the nearest cent (i.e. $55.493 per hour is rounded to $55.49) and percentages rounded to two decimal places.

2.4.7. Estimating Techniques and Past Experience

The Government will review the basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was established. The relevance and application of the Offerors’ price estimates based on past experience will be reviewed by the Government. The Government reserves the right to obtain information from the Contract Business Analysis Repository as considered necessary.

2.4.8. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government will review the Offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. The Offerors’ explanation of how any reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at an unacceptable performance risk will also be reviewed.

2.4.9. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding all price assumptions, limitations, and/or qualifications utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand the Offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.10. Over and Above (O&A) Labor Rates and Burden Rates

The Government will review the Price Volume to ensure the Offerors have indicated their understanding that the proposed firm fixed price ceiling rates are fully burdened and will apply to all out-years despite what current actuals are running at the time.

2.4.11. Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)/Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Although it is the Offerors’ responsibility to comply with SCLS, understanding and acknowledgement of compliance with SCLS and applicable CBAs will be reviewed. Offerors must understand proposed rates and unit pricing shall be sufficient to be compliant with SCLS and CBAs. Any labor designated as CBA covered will be noted. The Government will review the required table linking the Offerors’ proposed job categories/skill levels considered subject to the SCLS with the job categories/skill levels of the applicable Wage Determination (WD).

2.4.12. Probable Subcontractors

The Government will review the subcontractor information provided to include the subcontractor’s name, description of effort, contract type, and the methodology used to determine subcontractor pricing fair and reasonable.

2.4.13. Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will review and confirm submission of the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) offices responsible for administration of the Offeror’s Government contracts.

2.4.14. Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data, other than certified cost or pricing data, as believed necessary to support, justify, or clarify their proposed pricing. All pricing information provided in response to the solicitation may be reviewed and considered, if the Government determines the information will contribute to the evaluation of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.15. Submission of Pricing Matrix

The Government will confirm the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 2 of Section J of the Solicitation) was completed in its entirety and will utilize it to evaluate the Offeror’s TEP.