Amendment_4_Attachment_5_PACAF_Section_M_31_Mar_20.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1 SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.1 This is a competitive, best-value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS, AFFARS, Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 2019 Edition, and the DoD Source Selection Procedures memo dated 1 Apr 2016. These regulations are available electronically athttps://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Technical Acceptability Subfactor 2: Program Management Plan Subfactor 3: Quality Management Plan Subfactor 4: Country-specific Concerns

Factor 2: Technical Risk Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Price

There are four (4) factors for this evaluation: Technical Capability, Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. A tradeoff methodology will be used in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.304(e)(1). The Technical Capability Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor, and the Past Performance Factor is more important than the Technical Risk Factor. The Technical Capability, Technical Risk, and Past Performance Factors combined are significantly more important than the Price Factor; however, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The Government may be willing to award to an Offeror with a higher evaluated price that has a more favorable Technical Capability, Technical Risk and/or Past Performance rating.

1.2 The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program resources, schedule commitments, contract terms and/or conditions. Proposals may also be rejected due to unreasonably high or unbalanced pricing compared to Government estimates and competing offers to the extent that, when considered as a whole, including the evaluation of the technical proposal, the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity of the program.

1.3 The Government intends to award one contract for the PACAF F-16 Depot to an Offeror located within the competition region identified in Performance Work Statement (PWS) Addendum 1 - Competition Area.

1.4 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in their first proposals, in the format and meeting the requirements specified in Section L of this solicitation. The Government may incorporate the successful Offeror’s proposal, or parts of the proposal, into the contract by reference. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. Discussions, if held, will be conducted in accordance with FAR

15.306. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information). Offerors will be notified and given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror may not previously have had an opportunity to respond if the adverse information negatively affects the past performance https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations rating. Exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will constitute clarifications, not discussions.

1.5 The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential” of the proposal.

The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and represents a deficiency of a magnitude not considered correctible by conduct of meaningful discussion or is not correctable within a reasonable timeframe, the Offeror’s evaluation may be completed without discussions or the proposal may be eliminated from further evaluation, either as a result of initial evaluations, or after clarifications, communications, and/or meaningful discussions have failed to make the offer acceptable or higher in rating.

1.6 The Government may conduct site visits to gather and report information for evaluating the

Offeror’s capability and the existence of facilities or infrastructure. This information will be used in conjunction with the evaluation criteria in review of proposal plans to verify that the offer complies with the Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors (ITOs) in Section L of the Request for Proposal (RFP), and that other terms and conditions are met. Information will also be used in judging the potential for correcting proposal deficiencies. The Government reserves the right to exclude a proposal as unacceptable and therefore un-awardable based on this facility review.

Information from the review may also be used in conjunction with other evaluations.

1.7 The Government will seek past performance information to make an assessment of performance confidence for each Offeror as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures 3.1.3.3, focusing on performance that is recent and relevant to the technical subfactors. This review will result in a performance confidence assessment rating under Factor 3, Past Performance.

1.8 For purposes of trade-off to price, the Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer. The Government may be willing to pay more (a higher price) for a compliant offer from a responsible source that receives a higher Technical Capability rating, higher Past Performance rating, lower Technical Rrisk rating, or combination of ratings.

1.9 The Government will base its source selection decision on an integrated assessment of all proposals against the evaluation criteria in Section M of the RFP. While the Government Source Selection Team (SST) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the process. This may result in award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, the opportunities for trade-off or “trade-space”, and where the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines with an integrated assessment and best value decision that the Technical Capability rating, Technical Risk rating, and/or Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating associated with the higher price Offeror outweighs the price difference. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

2 FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL CAPABILITY and FACTOR 2, TECHNICAL

RISK ASSESSMENTS

2.1 Evaluation Process

Each offeror’s technical subfactors will be rated separately from the risk associated with their technical approach.

The Technical Capability rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets, does not met, or exceeds the requirements from Section L through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. Each subfactor will be evaluated by the Government and assigned a rating as defined in Table 1 below except for the requirements listed in Section L 7.5.1 – these are evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

The Government will evaluate the technical risk of a proposal for each subfactor and assign a rating of Low, Moderate, High, or Unacceptable (as defined in Table 2 below). The separate technical risk rating will consider the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Assessment of technical risk is manifested by the identification of weakness(es) associated with the offeror's proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation. Evaluators will make an independent judgment of the probability of success, the impact of failure, and the acceptability of the offeror’s proposed risk mitigation solutions when assessing technical risk. A higher technical risk rating may be given during proposal evaluation to those Offerors who currently do not possess capacity and capability for the requirements of the PWS.

Table 1 – Technical Capability Rating 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 and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Table 2 – Technical Risk Rating 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.

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

The Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range in accordance with FAR

15.306 and provision 52.215-1 of this solicitation, to the possible exclusion of offers that are judged to be outside the competitive range, not correctable, not correctable within a reasonable timeframe, or not correctable after meaningful discussions have failed to make the offer acceptable.

2.2 Subfactor 1, Technical Acceptability

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated , based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

NOTE: For this subfactor, capacity is defined as the Offeror’s ability to adequately verify that resources exist, or will exist at the appropriate time (PWS Section 1.4.4), in sufficient space and quantity, to perform all required modification and over and above workload IAW the Induction Schedule identified in PWS Para 1.4.3.1.

The Offeror proves possession of or access to the following facilities, or plan to develop capability and capacity if it does not currently exist, prior to first aircraft induction IAW

7.5.1 of Section L.

The Offeror provides a realistic and viable plan with sufficient detail to describe how the Offeror will recruit, train, certify, and qualify a skilled staff to be ready to perform aircraft work within three (3) months after contract award and begin work on the Sustainment Life Extension Program (SLEP) within six (6) months of contract award IAW PWS Para 1.4.4.

The Offeror provides a detailed plan to acquire necessary equipment, tools, and materials, which are not included as GFE and may not currently be available at the Offeror’s facility. The plan will include a realistic and viable schedule to acquire the tools and materials no later than 30 days prior to the first SLEP induction or five (5) months after contract award IAW PWS Para 1.4.1, 1.4.4, 1.5.2. As a minimum, the Offeror will address all items in PWS Attachments 2 and 5.

The Offeror demonstrates how capability to conduct wing repair will be in place within six

(6) months of contract award.

2.2.5.1 The Offeror demonstrates that the following will be ready within six (6) months of contract award:

2.2.5.1.1 Skills and ability to successfully perform overhaul tasks defined by T.O. 16W9-13-

2.2.5.1.2 Availability and technical compliance of at least the minimum required long lead time wing tooling (16A11191, 16A11192, 16A11835, 16A11836, and associated fixturing, or equivalent).

2.2.5.1.3 Technical compliance of Offeror wing tooling shall be accomplished by the Offeror’s proposal providing documentation 1) showing heritage of tool manufacture back to the appropriate master tooling/digital master data, where necessary; 2) showing evidence of satisfactory completion of all required Aerospace Engineering Instructions (AEIs) for calibration, pre-production and other required testing; and/or

3) certifying that overhauled wings have been supplied by the Offeror to any Government or Air force flying post-block F-16s or to the original equipment manufacturer (e.g., DD Form 250, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, purchase order invoice, and/or contract number). Evaluation team may require additional verification during discussions to ascertain compliance.

2.2.5.1.4 A thorough plan and schedule to obtain other required wing tooling (see PWS Attachment 4) within six (6) months of contract award, or a viable plan for use of alternate tools or processes.

2.2.5.2 If the Offeror chooses to subcontract wing overhaul workload, the Offeror provides the source of the wing work and provides a thorough plan and schedule detailing how the subcontractor shall ensure all required wing tooling will be available and technically compliant within six (6) months of contract award.

2.2.5.3 A higher technical risk rating for this subfactor may be assessed for Offerors who do not currently possess wing overhaul capability and capacity, or those whose proposal is based on sending wings to a subcontractor for overhaul.

The Offeror provides the following maintenance planning documentation:

2.2.6.1 An existing detailed, step-by-step planning summary for a modification task to accomplish a lower FS 341.8 bulkhead replacement or a task of a similar scope. The planning document identifies what procedures are needed to accomplish the task IAW PWS Para 1.11.2.1.

2.2.6.2 A plan to replace a left hand upper FS 325 Bulkhead segment (16B5247) for aircraft

1C:200 (89-2047). This plan includes all of the following elements:

2.2.6.2.1 Identifies manpower and special skills required to conduct this task.

2.2.6.2.2 Identifies the segment part number required for the referenced aircraft Type Version / Effectivity.

2.2.6.2.3 Describes jacking and stabilization requirements during segment replacement.

2.2.6.2.4 Identifies the structural disassembly tasks required to facilitate removal of the segment.

2.2.6.2.5 Identifies critical steps and/or processes required to facilitate removal of the segment.

2.2.6.2.6 Identifies Non-Destructive Inspections (NDI) that must be accomplished as a result of the described disassembly process.

2.2.6.2.7 Identifies the location and type of additional processes that must be accomplished to ensure replacement segment is compliant with drawing requirements (cold work, shimming, sealing, etc.).

2.2.6.2.8 Identifies any specialized tooling needed to complete this task.

2.2.6.2.9 Explains the process and specifications required to process fastener holes to final size.

2.2.6.2.10 Identifies concerns and/or potential risks and associated risk mitigation to the aircraft that could result from the replacement of this segment and any other required maintenance associated with replacing this segment.

2.3 Subfactor 2, Program Management Plan

The Program Management Plan rating will be based on the evaluation of the response to 7.6 of Section L.

Presents evidence supporting the following requirements:

2.3.2.1 A Risk Management Plan that describes a practical and reasonable approach to managing risk. The plan includes identification of the five (5) highest rated risks that impact schedule, performance, or cost control related to compliance with the requirements of the PWS and the conduct of the overall program. Of the five (5) risks identified, at least one (1) shall relate to Subfactor 4, Country-Specific Concerns, IAW PWS Para 1.5.6.3.2

2.3.2.2 A schedule for how the Offeror will prepare for non-SLEP and SLEP work, detailing facilities, equipment, and trained manpower. This schedule details the tasks required for inducting non-SLEP aircraft three (3) months after contract award and six (6) months after contract award for SLEP modifications IAW PWS para 1.4.4 and 1.5.2.

2.3.2.3 A schedule for SLEP modifications from induction to fly away IAW PWS Para 1.14.24.

This timeline includes post-learning curve process duration for induction tasks, paint strip, systems strip, modification flow time for each SLEP TCTO, TCTOs 1F-16- 2741D, 1F-16-2783 and 1F-16-2784, operational checks, and post- modification work to include Functional Check Flight (FCF) and paint IAW PWS Para 1.3.5, 1.3.6, 1.4.3.2, 1.14.24.

2.3.2.4 A map with supporting explanation showing the Offeror’s airspace is located in an area in which USAF pilots can perform all of the requirements for FCFs listed in TO 1F-16( )-6CF-1 and TO 1F-16( )-6CL-1 utilizing one internal fuel load with no external tanks or in-flight refueling IAW PWS Para 1.4.3.2 and 1.15.10.

2.3.2.5 A plan describing the facilities, systems, processes, and procedures that will be utilized to ensure the security of USG property to include aircraft, equipment, material, and information IAW PWS Para 1.8.1

2.4 Subfactor 3, Quality Management Plan

The Quality Management Plan rating will be based on the evaluation of the response to 7.7 of Section L. The Offeror presents evidence or a plan for how the Offeror meets the following requirements:

2.4.1.1 A tool control system which includes procedures for accountability of all Contractor and/or personal tooling IAW AFMCI 21-100 Chapter 10 and PWS Para 1.10.2.

2.4.1.2 A Foreign Object Damage (FOD) prevention program IAW NAS412, AFMCI 21-100 Chapter 13, and PWS Para 1.10.5.

2.4.1.3 An Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) control program IAW MIL-STD-1686 and PWS Para 1.10.6.

2.4.1.4 A digital U.S. Air Force TO system and other technical directives IAW TO 00-5-1 and PWS Paras 1.6, 1.10.8, and 1.10.9.

2.4.1.5 A quality assurance program that is equivalent to or compliant with ISO 9001:2015 and/or AS 9100D and is currently certified IAW PWS Para 1.10.1.

2.5 Subfactor 4, Country Specific Concerns

The Country Specific Concerns rating will be based on the evaluation of the response to 7.8 of Section L.

Presents a plan demonstrating the Offeror’s ability to meet the following Country-Specific requirements or concerns:

2.5.2.1 Customs Regulations: The Offeror’s proposal includes a thorough plan pertaining to importation of Government Furnished Equipment, material (including export controlled material such as those listed in 1-F-16( )-23 WP 007 IAW PWS Para 1.4.13 and 1.9.3) and entry/transit of personnel. A highly rated plan conveys thorough understanding of customs regulations specific to the Offeror’s country and demonstrates efficient processes for handling importation of material, equipment, and any other items that may be required for performance under this contract. Additionally, the plan identifies what agreements are in place via Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which make the Offeror’s depot a port of entry and thereby precludes the involvement of US Embassy support personnel and additional taxes. Should a SOFA not exist in the Offeror’s country, the Offeror will be considered noncompliant and therefore not eligible for award.

2.5.2.2 Taxes: The requirement is met when the Offeror submits a detailed plan that conveys a thorough understanding of their country specific taxes relevant to performance under this contract and details what taxes, if any, would be included within the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) prices.

2.5.2.3 Travel Visas: The Offeror’s proposal includes a thorough plan detailing the processing of Visa paperwork or how Visas would be handled (if needed) for CFTs to perform work within PACAF, as required.

2.5.2.4 Shipment: The Offeror’s proposal includes a detailed plan for handling goods in transit from the Port of Entry to the actual site of work. A highly rated plan demonstrates efficient processes and streamlined logistics for transporting assets from the Port of Entry to the actual site of work

2.5.2.5 Local Conditions: The Offeror’s proposal includes a Strike Contingency Plan that provides a plan for handling any labor disputes, union strikes, or any other manpower related shortfalls that could impact production and on-time completion of F-16 work due to financial, economic, political, and/or social factors specific to the country in which the Offeror operates. The proposal also includesa disclosure of the Offeror’s depot ownership, specifically the degree to which the Depot is owned by a host nation or private bond holders and the fiduciary risk of capital reclamation in the event of a financial collapse of local or regional currency.

3 FACTOR 3, PAST PERFORMANCE

3.1 The past performance evaluation will assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully meet the Government’s requirement. The recency, relevancy, and quality of the performance, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance will be considered. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past/present performance will be made. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government may consider an Offeror’s contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the Offeror’s present and past performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an Offeror’s work experience on three (3) contracts may, by definition, represent only a somewhat relevant effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when all three (3) contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a very relevant effort.

The following relevancy criteria apply:

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Criteria 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.

3.2 In assessing past performance, the Government will employ several approaches to evaluate the

Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on efforts that are recent and relevant in accordance with the following, including, but not limited to:

A past effort is determined recent if performance occurred within the period of five (5) years prior to the RFP issuance date (contracts still active are permitted) provided there has been enough performance to form an assessment. Submissions that are determined to not meet this recency requirement will not be evaluated further, i.e. a contract that completed work six years ago shall not be evaluated beyond the recency assessment.

A past effort is determined relevant where there has been sufficient work of a like or similar nature as described in this RFP that would afford a meaningful and comparable review by the Government. Submissions that do not meet the relevancy requirement shall not be evaluated beyond the relevancy assessment.

Critical subcontractors are those subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform at least 10 percent of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price, or who will perform aspects of the effort the Offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. Work done in the role of critical subcontractor and deemed by the Government as not critical to overall successful performance may be considered as less relevant. Past performance will be assessed to determine the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the requirements of this solicitation.

In order to be deemed Very Relevant in relation to Subfactor 1, Technical Acceptability, a past effort must demonstrate the capability to inspect, service, and perform repairs of similar or greater scope, magnitude, and complexity when compared to the work effort defined in the PWS. Examples include but are not limited to:

3.2.4.1 Depot-level maintenance on 1980s and/or 1990s design military fighter aircraft similar to the F-16.

3.2.4.2 Major structural repairs and/or replacements (e.g., wing carry-through bulkhead replacement).

3.2.4.3 Application of Radar Absorbing Material (RAM) (or similar spectrally selective coatings) to aircraft (does not have to be fighter aircraft).

3.2.4.4 Building or overhauling F-16 (or similar fighter aircraft) wings.

In order to be deemed Very Relevant in relation to subfactor 2, Program Management Plan, the Offeror must demonstrate a proven track record of effective program and risk management on an effort that is similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the history of the Offeror’s methods and processes for ensuring an effective risk management program.

In order to be deemed Very Relevant in relation to subfactor 3, Quality Management Plan, the

Offeror must demonstrate effective quality management practices and overall quality assurance on an effort that is similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the history of the Offeror’s methods and processes for ensuring an effective quality management program.

In order to be deemed Very Relevant in relation to subfactor 4, Country-Specific Concerns, the

Offeror must demonstrate a proven track record of effectively managing the challenges and concerns specific to this subfactor as described in section 8.8 of Section L, and in regards to an effort that is similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort described in this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the history of the Offeror’s methods and processes for successfully managing country-specific concerns.

In assessing past performance, the Government may employ several sources of information including, but not limited to: Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) information, questionnaire responses, interviews, and other sources available to the Government. Information utilized may be obtained from the references listed in the proposal, as well as from other sources known to the Government. Although Section L specifies the most relevant contracts, the Government may include performance information from other sources.

Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant. Evaluation of past performance will include consideration of overall customer satisfaction, performance in regard to the established Technical Acceptability subfactors, and conclusions of informed judgment.

The relevancy of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance will be considered. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will perform an independent determination of the relevancy of the data provided or obtained. Specific F-16 experience is not required for the past performance to be relevant.

Offerors will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if they have not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to determine if corrective measures have been implemented. The confidence assessment will consider issues including, but not limited to, the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the Offeror’s overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance information received from the various sources. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse findings are 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 to which the Offeror has had no opportunity to respond.

For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes that the Offeror has made will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. A separate quality assessment rating is not assigned; rather, the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based on the Offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Information from non-standard source(s), as gathered by the Past Performance Team, that does not match the format of questions in the questionnaire provided as attachment L-5 to the RFP will be reviewed by the Government. The Government will translate or correlate ratings and findings in a manner consistent with our treatment of results from the standard questionnaire in Attachment L-5.

Assigning Overall Ratings: As a result of the assessment of the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance of the contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Contracts that are not found to be recent and/or relevant will not be assigned a performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Capability subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Offeror performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned 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. The Government may consider performance confidence assessment ratings of “Ssubstantial Confidence” and “Satisfactory Confidence” more favorably than a rating of “Neutral Confidence”.

The following performance confidence assessment ratings apply:

The Government may find isolated problems in the Offeror or critical subcontractor past performance. Provided all other reports are favorable, isolated problems will not weigh as heavily in the assessment of confidence as an identifiable trend of questionable performance, whether overall or in a particular area.

4 FACTOR 4, PRICE EVALUATION

4.1 Price: The criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and (3) TEP.

4.2 Reasonableness

The determination of price reasonableness will be made by reviewing the pricing submitted for all proposed CLINs with the exception of the Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) CLINs. The CRNF CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during contract performance when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the Administrative Contracting Officer or PCO. All other CLINs will be evaluated 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 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 may be required to support the proposed price.

Table 4 – Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorable or unfavorable 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.

4.3 Balance

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

An Offeror’s price proposal is unbalanced if it is based on prices for any CLIN which are significantly less or greater, in relative terms, and a natural progression does not follow. Offers determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.4 Total Evaluated Price

The TEP is the sum of CLIN totals as specified below. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation of offers and will be the price used in making the award decision. The TEP will not be used as the ceiling price; it is used for evaluation purposes only. The TEP will be calculated as follows (note that the formulas built into the Excel spreadsheet provides the TEP):

4.4.1.1 The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs (0001-0002, 0008, and 0011-0047, 0050-0082) at their proposed value multiplied by estimated quantities for all applicable years of the contract.

4.4.1.2 The FFP Labor Rate CLINs (0003 and 0007) will be evaluated by applying Offeror proposed fully burdened labor rates against Government generated notional hours for all years of the contract. The notional hours will not be contractually binding and will only be used in calculation of the Offeror’s proposed rates will be contractually binding and will be used to price future work performed under the contract. The notional hours represent the Government’s best estimate of the expected work under these CLIN and will be equally applied to all Offerors.

4.4.1.3 The FFP CLIN (0005) Drop-in Maintenance, will be negotiated per task order and not included in calculation of the TEP

4.4.1.4 The FFP CLINs 0009 and 0010 will be negotiated per task order and not included in calculation of the TEP.

4.4.1.5 The FFP CLINs 0048 and 0049 will be negotiated when TCTOs are finalized after contract award.

4.4.1.6 Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLIN (0004) costs are to be included in the costs for other line items and will not be separately included in the TEP.

4.4.1.7 The CRNF CLIN (0006) Travel, Cost Reimbursed No Fee will not be included in the TEP.

Travel will be authorized and funded by the Government on an as-needed basis. Actual costs incurred under this CLIN will be reimbursed to the contractor as approved by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO).

4.5 Cost Analysis

The Government may perform cost analysis of an Offeror’s proposed costs if, in the event of only one proposal being received, cost and pricing data or other than cost and pricing data is requested. Any issues will be resolved through discussions. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s proposal. The procedures set forth in DFARS 215.371 will be followed.