ATSSI_Section_M_Final_02_Nov_16.pdf

1 | P a g e

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ATSSI

02 NOVEMBER 2016

SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 DESCRIPTION

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. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past

Performance, and Price Proposal. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L 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.

1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award a single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ), however the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.2.1 Notice to Offeror(s)

Funds are not presently available for this effort. No award will be made under this solicitation until funds are available for the initial task order/minimum guarantee. The

Government reserves the right to cancel this solicitation, either before or after the closing date.

If the Government determines not to award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by the offeror(s).

2 | P a g e

1.3 REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS

The Government may reject any proposal that, as a result of its evaluation, is determined to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.4 DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate the proposals and make award without discussions;

therefore, it is imperative that offeror(s) submit their best terms initially. However, 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. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

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 proposing the combination most advantageous to the

Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

a) Documentation and Drawings

b) Configuration Control and System Engineering Process

c) Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Plan

Subfactor 2: Management Approach

a) Team Structure

b) Contractor/Government Interface Plan

c) Transition Plan

d) Small Business Participation Plan

Subfactor 3: Air Data Computer Task Order

Factor 2: Past Performance

a) Recency

b) Relevancy

c) Performance

Factor 3: Price

a) Reasonableness

b) Realism

c) Balance

d) TEP

3 | P a g e

2.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance and Price Proposal are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2

(Past Performance) next in importance and Factor 3 (Price Proposal) is last in importance.

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

2.3 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical

Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

1) Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection

Procedures (date 17 May 2016), Table 1A – Technical Rating Method, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

D e f i c i e n c y i s a

Deficiency is material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

TABLE 1A – Technical Rating Method

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

4 | P a g e

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the

Government during contract performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

Subfactor 2: Management Approach

Subfactor 3: Air Data Computer Task Order

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of the requirements.

2) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical Subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Table 1B. Technical Risk Rating Method

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

5 | P a g e

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

The contactor chosen for contract award must be able to fulfill the following Knowledge and Skill Requirements:

2.3.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

Ratings for this subfactor will be assigned IAW tables 1A and 1B above to the degree to which the proposal:

1) Clearly and comprehensively describe: Documentation and Drawings, Configuration

Control and System Engineering Process, and GFE Mitigation Plan with an appropriate level and descriptions of functional and physical allocations that define how it will satisfy the above criteria with approaches and features that are technically sound and feasible.

2) Demonstrate the ability to effectively balance performance, cost, and risk.

The Small Business Participation Plan will not utilize Table 1A and 1B from above. For the evaluation process of the Small Business Participation Plan reference Section 2.3.2.4.

2.3.1.1 Documentation and Drawings

This element evaluates the offeror’s ability to provide documentation and drawings that meet required regulations and procedures for submission to associated data systems. The requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal includes evidence of adherence to MIL-

DTL-38807D, MIL-DTL-87829D and follows Technical Order (TO) 00-5-1, TO 00-5-3, TO 00-5-16 and TO 00-5-17 for documentation. This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal demonstrates, at a minimum, an adherence to industry practices for drawings, to MIL-PRF-32070A and ASME Y14 standards for documentation and drawings. Improved processes for documentation and drawings that are beneficial to the

Government may demonstrate the contractor’s ability to exceed this requirement.

2.3.1.2 Configuration Control and System Engineering Process

This element evaluates the offeror’s ability to provide configuration control and to follow known system engineering processes.

The offeror’s proposal shall provide detailed information describing a system engineering process with relevant milestones, delivery schedules, review processes, decision points, and stakeholder interaction requirements. Any internal checklists, quality control processes and/or reviews, configuration control processes, and potential impacting events shall be included.

The proposed system engineering process shall adhere to the technical process identified in conjunction with DoDI 5000.02, Enclosure 3 (System Engineering) and the corresponding technical maturity points identified in DoDI 5000.02, Enclosure 3 (System

Engineering) IAW PWS 3.1.1(f). Since these processes are designed for much larger scale projects, the offeror’s System Engineering Process will be evaluated on how

6 | P a g e efficiently these processes have been tailored to fit a typical Test Program Set (TPS) development, as similar to the ADCTO.

This requirement is met when the System Engineering Process adheres to the basic structure identified in DoDI 5000.02, Enclosure 3 (System Engineering) with all relevant milestones, review processes, decision points, and stakeholder interaction requirements clearly tailored to a project of similar complexity, size, and scope to that of the ADCTO.

Also, the offeror must show evidence of being at least certified to Capability Maturity

Model Integration (CMMI) Level 2 and include evidence of a configuration control process.

To further exceed this requirement’s expectations, the offeror may propose improvements in the baseline process and detail how and why such improvements are in the best interest of the Government to deploy. Also, additional (or more in-depth) certifications may show evidence of exceeding expectations beneficial to the Government.

2.3.1.3 GFE Mitigation Plan

This element evaluates the offeror’s ability to provide the Government a plan for mitigating risk associated with Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates, at a minimum, knowledge of Government processes for obtaining GFE and a comprehensive understanding of the

Loan/Lease process. These points are not all inclusive. Advanced plans for GFE related problems that are beneficial to the Government may demonstrate the contractor’s ability to exceed this requirement.

2.3.2 Subfactor 2: Management Approach

Ratings for this subfactor will be assigned IAW tables 1A and 1B above to the degree to which the proposal:

1) Clearly and comprehensively describe: Management Approach and Team Structure, Contractor/Government Interface Plan, Transition Plan, and Small Business

Participation Plan with an appropriate level and descriptions of functional and physical allocations that define how it will satisfy the above criteria with approaches and features that are technically sound and feasible.

2) Demonstrate the ability to effectively balance performance, cost, and risk.

2.3.2.1 Team Structure

This element evaluates the offeror’s Team Structure. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates and identifies, at a minimum, the following labor categories as part of their Team Structure:

a) Administration/Clerical

b) Applications Developer

c) Applications Systems Analyst

d) Computer Scientist

e) Configuration Management Specialist

f) Hardware Engineer

g) Program Manager

h) Subject Matter Expert

7 | P a g e

i) System Engineer

j) Technical Writer

k) Test Engineer

l) Training Specialist

This list is not all inclusive. Demonstration of an advanced team structure that is beneficial to the Government may demonstrate the contractor’s ability to exceed this requirement.

2.3.2.2 Contractor/Government Interface Plan

This element evaluates the offeror’s Contractor/Government Interface Plan for the ATSSI effort. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates, at a minimum, specific interface personnel for the functions of Logistics, Configuration Control, and

Program Management. All resumes, certifications, licenses, and related knowledge shall be included with the proposal. These points are not all inclusive. Demonstration of further interface functions that are beneficial to the Government may demonstrate the contractor’s ability to exceed this requirement.

2.3.2.3 Transition Plan

This element evaluates the offeror’s ability to demonstrate how long it will take to assemble their team to developing and providing TPSs for delivery to the Government. It will be expected for the offeror to provide a schedule showing relevant milestones leading up to the point of being able to begin development of a TPS (offeror may assume the ADCTO as the TPS in question). This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal includes, at a minimum, a Phase-In Transition Plan that meets the requirements detailed in the PWS (Section 5.20) and can show the ability to begin verifiable efforts towards

TPS development within 2 months of contract award. The ability to improve this transition time frame and details of the Phase-In Transition Plan would exceed this requirement’s expectations.

2.3.2.4 Small Business Participation Plan (PWS 5.19, Section L 3.2.4)

Table 2. 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.

The Small Business element is considered to be acceptable, as defined in table C-1 of the

Source Selection Procedures and Table 2 above, when the offeror’s Small Business

Participation Plan clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the Small Business Subcontracting goals as defined in 5.19 in the PWS. The

Acceptable/Unacceptable rating for Small Business Participation Plan will be applied to table 1A for this subfactor. There will be no risk assessment for Small Business

Participation Plan applied to table 1B. The Small Business Participation Plan is not to be confused with Small Business Subcontracting Plan. All offerors will be evaluated on

8 | P a g e their Small Business Participation Plan. The evaluation of the Small Business

Participation Plan will also include the following:

a) The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals

b) The extent of commitment to use such firms

2.3.3 Subfactor 3: Air Data Computer Task Order

Ratings for this subfactor will be assigned IAW tables 1A and 1B above to the degree to which the proposal:

1) Clearly and comprehensively describe the ADCTO with an appropriate level and descriptions of functional and physical allocations that define how it will satisfy the above criteria with approaches and features that are technically sound and feasible.

2) Demonstrate the ability to effectively balance performance, cost, and risk.

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to address the ADCTO as an example of a typical tasking to be done on the ATSSI program. The proposal for the ADCTO must include at a minimum the detailed approach to performing the TPS development identified, complete with schedule, milestones, development processes, design phases, proposed man-hours, labor categories utilized for the project, assumptions and risk concerns, and other such details.

For purposes of evaluation, the contractor shall select the ATS Support Alternative deemed most appropriate for this particular application. Full justification shall be provided for the selection of this support alternative (ref PWS Section 3.1.4.1).

This requirement is met when it includes adequate evidence of satisfying all the following elements: documentation, drawings, Configuration Control, System

Engineering Process, and Government Furnished Equipment Plan. This evidence will be further evaluated (in conjunction with evidence from addressing the PWS) in the assessment of the above elements. These points are not all inclusive. Demonstration of robust processes that are beneficial to the Government may demonstrate the contractor’s ability to exceed this requirement.

2.4 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

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

2.4.1 Ratings

The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in “DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence

Assessments,” as excerpted below in Table 3. 0.

TABLE 3- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance

9 | P a g e

2.4.2 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 Proposal factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in

2.3.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate and 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 (CO) and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

CONFIDENCE 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.

10 | P a g e

2.4.3 Recency Assessment

Recency is defined as performance within the last five years from the date of the issuance of the solicitation. The Government will not consider performance on contracts where performance was concluded more than five years prior to the solicitation issue date or contracts awarded within three months prior to the solicitation date. The contract/task order in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance if any part of the contract performance falls within the five year timeframe.

2.4.4 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 Proposal factor, including their relative order of importance (Section M 2.3). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Proposal Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to efforts with similar scope and magnitude. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs) 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, as excerpted as Table 3 below).

TABLE 3- Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description

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.

11 | P a g e

2.4.5 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 Proposal 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.

2.4.5.1 Utilization of Small Business Concerns

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a) (2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business

Subcontracting Plan.

2.4.5.2 Quality Assessment Findings

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

12 | P a g e 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.

2.5 FACTOR 3: PRICING PROPOSAL

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Reasonableness, (2) Balance, (3) Realism, (where identified) and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.5.1 Reasonableness

The determination of price reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed

Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) with the exception of the Cost Reimbursable No

Fee (CRNF) CLINs under the basic contract. All CLINs in the ADCTO proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. The basic contract CRNF CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the Administrative Contracting Officer

(ACO). All other CLINs will be reviewed for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price Proposal analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of

Government-obtained information, additional information IAW FAR Subpart 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

2.5.2 Balance

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit CLIN pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis

Techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.5.3 Realism

All cost type CLINs (0004, 1004) that are not otherwise normalized will be evaluated for

Realism IAW FAR 15.404-1. It is anticipated that the same burdened base rates (less profit/fee) for all cost type rates will be identical to the fixed price type rates in the Labor

Rate Matrix. This is anticipated to satisfy the realism evaluation for these labor rates. If this is not the case or the Government feels it needs further information to support price realism the Government reserves the right to request further information and the

Government will adjust the probable cost of the offeror’s rates for evaluation purposes

IAW 15.404-1(d)(2) if the Government finds the offeror’s probable cost differs from the proposed cost.

2.5.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the proposed rates applied to notional hours for all years for the base period and options (including FAR clause 52.217-9, Option to

Extend the Term of the Contract). To determine the price for the period covered by FAR

13 | P a g e clause 52.217-9, the Government will include in the TEP a price for a 6-month period.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Government determined elements of the notional formula WILL NOT be disclosed to offerors. A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete price submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only, however all proposed rates are contractually binding as Not-to-Exceed prices for issuance of task orders.

2.5.4.1 Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs (0001, 0002, 0003)

The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs (0001, 0002, 0003) will be evaluated by applying

Government generated notional ordering hours and applying them to offeror proposed rates for Government and contractor site respectively in the Section J Attachment TEP

Pricing Matrix and adding offeror proposed profit rates. The notional hours will represent the Government’s best estimate of hours for all years of the contract. The notional hours will not be disclosed outside the Government. The total price calculated herein will not be contractually binding and is for evaluation purposes only; however, the rates as proposed will be contractually binding for pricing of future contract actions.

2.5.4.2 Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLIN (0004)

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLIN (0004, 1004) will be evaluated by applying

Government generated notional hours and applying them to offeror probable or proposed

(if different) rates for Government and contractor site respectively in the Section J

Attachment TEP Pricing Matrix spreadsheet and adding offeror proposed fee rates. The notional hours will represent the Government’s best estimate of hours for all years of the contract. The notional hours will not be disclosed outside the Government. The total price calculated herein will not be contractually binding and is for evaluation purposes only; however, the rates as proposed will be contractually binding for pricing of future contract actions.

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLIN (0004) will be normalized by adding the notional amounts of $1,000,000 per year for all years and adding offeror proposed fee rate. The total price calculated herein will not be contractually binding and is for evaluation purposes only; however, the fee rate will be contractually binding for pricing of future contract actions.

2.5.4.3 Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLIN (0005, 0006)

The Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLIN (0005,0006,1005,1006) will be normalized at zero dollars for all years of the contract. This CLIN is immaterial to the overall contract value, incidental in purpose, and will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).

2.5.4.4 NSP CLIN (0007)

The CLIN 0007 is Not Separately Priced.

14 | P a g e

2.5.4.5 Air Data Computer Task Order

The ADCTO will be included in the TEP at its proposed price IAW with offeror’s

ADCTO Price Proposal. The Government may elect to award and the offeror may be required to perform the ADCTO at the proposed price.

2.5.5 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 the offeror or any other entity who will be issued other-than fixed price work under other-than fixed price CLINs does not currently have Government approval of its accounting system, it may be subject to a Pre-Award

Accounting System Audit.

2.5.6 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees

In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s

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

3.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting documentation and rationale.