Attachment 4 - ATSSI II Draft Section M.docx

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

Automated Test System Sustainment Initiative II

(ATSSI II)

03 April 2020

Table of Contents

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD THROUGH SOURCE SELECTION

Source Selection Methodology This acquisition will utilize the Trade-Off source selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection procedures referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at acquisition.gov. In using best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the ATSSI II contract requirements, in a way that will be the most advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher Total Evaluated Price (TEP) offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher priced offeror is determined to be the best value to the Government. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this document. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the trade-off process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluste one proposal from each offeror.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to select one contractor for this effort; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

Correction Potential of Proposals The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable within the Government’s time constraints, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition in accordance with FAR 15.306(c).

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets or exceeds all requirements set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP) , and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section 2 below.

Discussions The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right, if it is determined to be in its best interest, to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Request for Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal remains in the competitive range at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award or may affect the offeror’s ratings.

FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS USED FOR EVALUATION

A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. Award will be made to the offeror with the proposal that is the best value to the Government based upon integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor One – Technical Subfactor 1 – Technical/Management Proficiency (Acceptable/ Unacceptable)

a) Documentation and Drawings

b) Quality Management System (QMS) and CMMI Certification

c) Small Business Participation Plan Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach (Trade-Off)

a) Industrial Process Control (IPC), Configuration Control, and System Engineering Process

b) Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Risk Mitigation Plan Subfactor 3 – Management Approach (Trade-Off)

a) Contractor/Government Interface Plan

b) Contractor Bias Mitigation Plan

c) Partnering Agreements Subfactor 4 – Sample Task Order (Trade-Off) Factor Two – Past Performance Factor Three – Price Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors IAW FAR 15.304(e), the Technical factor, which includes the acceptable/unacceptable ratings, technical ratings and technical risk ratings, is significantly more important than the Past Performance and Price factors, and the Past Performance factor is more important than the Price factor. However, price will contribute to the selection decision. Within Factor 1, Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactors 2, 3, and 4. Factor 1, Subfactors 2, 3, and 4 are approximately equal in importance.

Technical Assessment The evaluation of the technical proposal provides for four assessments. Technical Subfactor 1 will be evaluated as acceptable/unacceptable, while the remaining 3 subfactors will be assessed using two distinct but related assessments. Offeror’s proposal must receive an overall acceptable rating for Subfactor 1 to be considered for further evaluation of Technical Subfactors 2, 3, and 4, and Factors 2 and 3. Subfactors 2, 3, and 4 evaluation will provide for two distinct but related assessments: Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have approximately equal impact for the evaluation of each Technical Subfactor. The Technical Rating includes consideration of proposal strengths and deficiencies, defined below:

Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (See FAR 15.001) The separate Technical Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal weaknesses, defined below:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and capabilities explanation and how they will use their approach and capabilities to accomplish/satisfy requirements, and not merely restate requirements.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate Subfactor 1 on an acceptable or unacceptable basis as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as excerpted below. An “Unacceptable” rating in this subfactors will be considered a deficiency and render the entire Technical Factor unacceptable. An Acceptable rating must be received in order for the offeror’s proposal to continue in the Government’s evaluation of all other Factors and Subfactors.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Technical Assessment The technical rating of Subfactors 2, 3, and 4 evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical Subfactors 2, 3, and 4, will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Technical Ratings:

Technical Risk Rating Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assess the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or signification weaknesses. Technical Subfactors 2, 3, and 4 will receive a Technical Risk Rating (in addition to the color adjectival rating in section 2.4) as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings:

Past Performance Assessment The Past Performance Evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. 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 2.1. 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.

Past Performance Ratings The Past Performance Factor will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating:

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 2.1. 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.

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.

Relevance 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 as stated in 2.1. 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 recency assessment will receive a Recency Rating described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating:

Quality of Services 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.

VOLUME I, FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

The technical volume will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the offeror addresses each element of the subfactors and shows evidence of meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of each Technical subfactor. As part of Volume I the Government will evaluate the following four Technical subfactors and elements:

Subfactor 1 – Technical/Management Proficiency

a) Documentation and Drawings

b) Quality Management System (QMS) and CMMI Level 3 Certification

c) Small Business Participation Plan Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach

a) Industrial Process Control (IPC), Configuration Control, and System Engineering Process

b) Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Risk Mitigation Plan Subfactor 3 – Management Approach

a) Contractor/Government Interface Plan

b) Contractor Bias Mitigation Plan

c) Partnering Agreements Subfactor 4 – Sample Task Order Subfactor 1: Technical/Management Proficiency This subfactor will be evaluated to ensure the proposal meets the minimum acceptable requirements in Technical and Management Proficiency. The offeror shall clearly and comprehensively describe, with examples and evidence showing documentation demonstrating how they fulfill the evaluation requirements defined in PWS Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.4 to the degree specified for each element. The Government anticipates most offerors having these capabilities; therefore evaluation will be on the acceptable/unacceptable criteria. Offerors found unacceptable in this subfactor will result in the offeror being disqualified from competition.

Documentation and Drawings The documentation and drawings element is considered to be acceptable, as defined in section 2.2.1 above, when the offeror’s proposal provides examples as evidence of adherence to MIL-DTL-38807D, MIL-DTL-87829E, MIL-STD-38784A, and follows TO 00-5-1, TO 00-5-3, and TO 00-5-16 for documentation. All documentation examples (minimum of 2) submitted must be completed in Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). There shall be 1 example submitted for each of the following types of drawings: manufacturing drawing, assembly drawing, vendor item control drawing, electrical schematic, and mechanical schematic. Drawings are considered acceptable when they demonstrate adherence to the ASME Y14 standard and provide level 3 detail, meaning it will give the Government the ability to troubleshoot, repair, and re-manufacture the item. Included with this requirement, drawings must contain the required Government statements and notices. Examples must identify where they adhere to listed standards and commercial practices listed above. The documentation process requirements are defined in section 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 of the PWS.

Quality Management System (QMS) and CMMI Certification The Quality Management System (QMS) and CMMI Certification element is considered to be acceptable, as defined in section 2.2.1 above, when the offeror’s proposal provides evidence of certification or third party validation of offeror’s QMS, a QMS recertification plan, and a copy of a current CMMI Level 3 certification. All certifications and third party validations must include authorizing authority and date of issue. QMS and CMMI requirements are defined in section 7.6 of the PWS.

Small Business Participation Plan The Small Business element is considered to be acceptable, as defined in section 2.2.1 above, when the offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the Small Business Participation Plan as defined in PWS para. 7.24.1 The Small Business Participation Plan is not to be confused with Small Business Subcontracting Plan. All offerors will be evaluated on 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 Subfactor 2: Technical Approach The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will ensure the offeror’s proposal clearly and comprehensively describes the/their Industrial Process Control (IPC) Plan, Configuration Control and System Engineering Processes, and GFE Risk Mitigation Plan with an appropriate level of descriptions showing their functional and physical allocations that define how they will satisfy the above criteria with approaches and features that are technically sound.

Industrial Process Control (IPC), Configuration Control and System Engineering Process This element evaluates the offeror’s ability to provide Industrial Process Control (IPC), 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. The offeror’s proposed system engineering process shall include the offeror’s ability to seamlessly apply their process to ATSSI II requirements. Any internal checklists, quality control processes and/or reviews, configuration control processes, and potential impacting events shall be included.

Along with their system engineering process, the offeror shall provide IPC plans according to the requirements outlined in section 7.1 of the PWS. The offeror shall deliver IPC plans for the Test Program Set (TPS) Process Control Plan (TPCP) and Built-to-Specification Hardware Manufacture Process Control Plan (BHMPCP) for proposal evaluation as required in section 7.1.2 of the PWS. The offeror’s proposal shall provide a method to access data that can be trended on control charts i.e. engineering limits, requirements, and data points the system uses to evaluate compliance to requirements IAW section 7.1.3 of the PWS

This requirement is met when the offeror’s System Engineering Process provides all relevant milestones, review processes, decision points, and stakeholder interactions that aligns to ATSSI II requirements. In addition, to meet this requirement the offeror must also provide a TPCP and a BHMPCP Plan that meet the IPC standards outlined in Section 7.1 of the PWS. To exceed this requirement, the offeror may propose improvements in the baseline process and details how and why such improvements are in the best interest of the Government to deploy. Also, additional (or more in-depth) certifications/accreditations may demonstrate evidence of exceeding benefit to the Government.

Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Risk Mitigation Plan This element evaluates the offeror’s ability to provide the Government a plan for mitigating risk associated with non-available Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) for Task Order requirements (ref section 6.1 of the PWS). This requirement is met when the offeror’s GFE Risk Mitigation Plan demonstrates, at a minimum, knowledge of Government processes for obtaining GFE and an understanding of the Government’s Loan/Lease process and the offeror’s approach to overcoming issues with non-available GFE. These items are not all inclusive. A more in-depth understanding and experience of the Government’s Loan/Lease process may be rated more favorably. Innovative plans that mitigate risk of non-available GFE that are beneficial to the Government may demonstrate the contractor’s ability to exceed this requirement.

Subfactor 3: Management Approach The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will ensure the offeror’s proposal clearly and comprehensively describes their management approach with their Contractor/Government Interface Plan, Contractor Bias Mitigation Plan, and Partnering Agreements with an appropriate level of descriptions showing their functional and physical allocations that define how they will satisfy the above criteria with approaches and features that are technically sound.

Contractor/Government Interface Plan This element evaluates the offeror’s Contractor/Government Interface Plan for the ATSSI II effort. The offeror’s Interface Plan will be part of their Program Management Plan defined in section 3.6.1 of the basic PWS. 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 as well as evidence of offeror’s experience working with relevant Government organizations (i.e. PMEL, AFMETCAL, ATSG, TOMA, etc.). The offeror will provide all resumes, certifications, licenses for Government interface personnel, and evidence of working with Government organizations shall be included with the proposal. These points are not all inclusive. Demonstration of greater evidence of experience and/or interface functions that are beneficial to the Government may demonstrate the contractor’s ability to exceed this requirement.

Contractor Bias Mitigation Plan This element evaluates the offeror’s Contractor Bias Mitigation Plan for the ATSSI II effort. The requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates, at a minimum, how they will address and perform their Contractor Bias Mitigation Plan outlined in sections 7.2.1 of the PWS. An innovative approach for the Contractor Bias Mitigation Plan that is beneficial to the Government may demonstrate the offeror’s ability to exceed this requirement.

Partnering Agreements This element evaluates the offeror’s evidence of Partnering Agreements with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and other vendors. This requirement is part of the offeror’s Subcontracting Plan as outlined in section 7.2.2 of the PWS. The requirement is met when the offeror provides evidence of a Partnering Agreement with an OEM and/or a relevant vendor to the ATSSI II effort. Evidence of partnering agreements with multiple OEMs and other vendors that are advantageous and relevant to the ATSSI II effort may demonstrate the offeror’s ability to exceed this requirement.

Subfactor 4: Sample Task Order This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to address the Sample Task Order (Attachment 6, Sample Task Order) as a representation of the work to be performed on the ATSSI II program. The proposal for the Sample Task Order must include a detailed approach to performing the requirements identified.

For purposes of evaluation, the contractor shall select the ATS Support solution deemed most appropriate for this particular application. Full justification shall be provided for the selection of this support solution (ref. PWS Sections 3.3.5). The sample task will also be evaluated for how the offeror’s overarching System Engineering Process has been applied IAW section 3.1 of the PWS.

This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal shows a detailed approach complete with schedule, milestones, development processes, design phases, proposed man-hours, labor categories utilized for the project, assumptions, inherent risk concerns, documentation, drawings, and other relevant details. Demonstration of robust processes that are beneficial to the Government may demonstrate the contractor’s ability to exceed this requirement. A robust process may incorporate contractor’s technical approach elements, i.e. IPC Plan, Configuration Control, System Engineering Process, and GFE Risk Mitigation Plan.

VOLUME II, FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The technical volume will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the offeror addresses each element of the subfactors and shows evidence of meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of each Technical subfactor.

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 2.1. Past Performance showing experience working with relevant AF organizations may result in a higher rating.

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.

VOLUME III, FACTOR 3: PRICE

The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor are: (1) Completeness, (2) Price Reasonableness, (3) Balance, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). IAW FAR 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan.

Completeness The offeror’s pricing submission will be evaluated for compliance with Section L and all other portions of the Request for Proposal (RFP). Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

Price Reasonableness The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be reviewed for price reasonableness IAW the evaluated using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 – (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness. For a price to be 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.

Balance Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Total Evaluated Price The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the proposed rates (Attachment 4, TEP Matrix), applied to notional hours for all years for the base period and options (including FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract). To determine the price for the period covered by FAR 52.217-9, the Government will include in the TEP a price for the option period. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Government has determined that the 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.

Unacceptable Technical Subfactors If at any time during the evaluation the Government finds a technical subfactor to be unacceptable, the evaluation of pricing will reflect, "Not Determined" for Reasonableness and Balance due to the offeror's price not reflecting an acceptable technical approach. The Government may also decline to consider the offeror's TEP for purposes of competitive range or award if the offeror has any unacceptable rating.

VOLUME IV – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

The Government will review the completeness and correctness of the offeror’s contract documentation submission as part of Volume III. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required in Section L Instruction to Offerors. An incomplete package may exclude the offeror from competition.

Limitations on Subcontracting The Government will review subcontracting documentation to ensure it demonstrates how the prime contractor will meet the requirements IAW FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting.

Professional Employee Compensation Plan 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.

SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

ATSSI II: Section M