FIA2T_Section_M_20160202.docx

FA8307-16-R-0049

Flexible Information Assurance Acquisition Tool (FIA2T) Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award 02 February 2016 Section J Attachment 8

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award Table of Contents

DEFINITIONS

The following terms when italicized in the text of Sections L & M, and their definitions/acronyms, shall be applicable to this Request for Proposal (RFP) only. Offerors shall use these definitions/acronyms while preparing proposals for this acquisition.

Contractual Effort: A single contract or a single delivery/task order placed under a master Single Award or Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) delivery/task order contract (FAR 16.501-1); or a single delivery/task order placed under a Federal Supply Schedule (FAR 8.405-2) or a single delivery/task order placed under a master Single Award or Multiple Award Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) (FAR 8.405-3 or FAR 13.303).

Distinct: (past performance) Clearly different and separate from other past performance submittals.

Offeror: The Offeror is defined as the Prime Contractor that is submitting the proposal. All mandatory technical, security, and past performance requirements shall be in the Offeror’s name. References to Offeror in this RFP excludes using any subcontractors/team members as a viable means to meet the proposal requirement unless specifically stated as allowed to be used in the response of that particular section (i.e. Technical Subfactors 1 and 2, Cost/Price).

Partial Small Business (SB) Set-aside: A pre-defined scope of work (SOO element 2.1) that has been set-aside for SB considerations.

Partial Small Business (SB) Set-aside Pool: A set of SB Offerors that proposed to the Partial SB Set-Aside requirements and were deemed acceptable for contract award.

Realistic: Achievable based on known facts within the program’s time and resources limitations.

Realistic schedule: A proposed schedule that covers all known tasks, time and proper resources in an orderly and convincing fashion.

Reasonable or Reasonableness: For a price to be Reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Recent submittal: (past performance) a past performance submittal must be ongoing or have been completed within the past 8 years prior to the date of this solicitation.

Relevant: Having performed some contractual tasks in the past that logically have bearing or logical connection to cryptographic the FIA2T SOO Areas.

Relevant Environment: The specific subset of the operational environment that is required to demonstrate critical "at risk" aspects of the final product performance in an operational environment. It is an environment that focuses specifically on stressing the technology in question. Note: A Relevant environment is required for Technology Readiness Levels 5 and 6.

Relevant Submittal: a referenced contractual effort that is completed or on-going for Information Assurance related products (hardware and/or software, COMSEC equipment, cryptographic key material, data distribution/ management equipment, and ancillary/related equipment. This Relevant past performance submittal will describe a similar scope of work covering one or more FIA2T Statement of Objectives (SOO) areas.

Sample Tasks: Engineering tasks/requirements that seem real but are not current requirements in the AF cryptographic program offices. Sample Tasks 1 and 2 are for the UNRESTRICTED pool and the Small Business Sample Task is for the Partial SB Set-Aside pool.

Size, Weight and Power (SWaP): System or sub-system characteristics expressed in volume, weight and power.

Software: The programs, routines, and languages that control the functioning of the hardware and direct its operation. The programs used to operate the systems to include application software, system/subsystem software, firmware, and middleware.

Sound: When used in a program management context, the artifact is well constructed, (i.e., has all necessary components in proper relationship to each other). When used in a technical or design context, a statement that is logically valid, based on proven engineering principles that are tested and proven to be free from defects and high risks are mitigated.

Subcontracting: One prime contractor delivering required tasks or products is under one contract with additional contractor(s) providing some of the tasks under a separate agreement with the prime.

Substantiate: Support with proof of evidence or provide Relevant analysis, i.e. trade-off studies for design approach or technology selection, test data, test reports, commercial/Government standards, or product specifications.

Suitability: Of the right type or quality for a particular purpose or occasion.

Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM): A systematic process of identifying susceptibilities, vulnerabilities and threats throughout DoD’s “supply chain” and developing mitigation strategies to combat those threats whether presented by the supplier, the supplied product and its subcomponents, or the supply chain. These includes risks that adversaries will insert malicious code into or otherwise subvert the design, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, or maintenance of information communication technology (ICT) components that may be used in DoD systems to gain unauthorized access to data, to alter data, to disrupt operations, or to interrupt communications.

Susceptibility: The likelihood of being affected, or a tendency to be affected, by a specific thing.

Team: A prime contractor and all proposed first-tier subcontractors.

UNRESTRICTED Pool: A set of Offerors (SBs or other than SBs) that proposed to the UNRESTRICTED requirements and were deemed acceptable for contract award.

Validate: To confirm or the act of confirming truthfulness or soundness.

Conducting Source Selection Basis for Contract Award FIA2T contracts will be awarded via FAR Part 15 full and open competition with a partial SB Set-Aside IAW FAR 19.502-4(b). Under the FIA2T indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract all work will be divided into two competitive "pools” the Partial SB Set-Aside and UNRESTRICTED.

The UNRESTRICTED pool is open to all interested parties regardless of business size.

The Partial SB Set-Aside pool will result in SB awardees becoming eligible to receive a contract award for the Partial SB Set-Aside IAW FAR 19.502-4(b). The Partial SB Set-Aside involves future delivery/task orders described in the FIA2T SOO task, Materiel Solutions Analysis (MSA) phase, Section 2.1.

The source selection for both pools is based on "Best Value" and will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.3, and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Subpart 5315.3 thereto. These regulations are available electronically at: http://farsite.hill.af.mil. A contract may be awarded to an SB or other than SB 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, to represent the best value to the Government.

Within the best value continuum, FAR 15.101 defines best value as using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. To be awarded on the FIA2T basic contract, an Offeror must be rated “acceptable” in the Technical and Past Performance factors, and assessed as “fair, reasonable and realistic” for the Cost/Price factor. A cost realism analysis of cost reimbursable effort per FAR 15.404-1(d) will be the only basis for an assessment of “realistic” for the Cost/Price factor; price realism analysis of fixed price effort will not be conducted. The Government reserves the right to make no awards based on the quality of proposals received and/or funding availability for this program.

The Government intends to use three (3) evaluation factors to evaluate Offeror proposals: Technical, Past Performance and Cost/Price.

In the UNRESTRICTED pool an Offeror’s proposal responses must be assessed as “acceptable” for the Technical and Past Performance factors and assessed as “fair and reasonable” and “balanced” for both sample tasks, and “realistic” for the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) sample task, for the Offeror to be considered as awardable. A rating of “unacceptable” in Technical or Past Performance, or an evaluation other than “fair and reasonable” or other than “realistic” in Cost, and an evaluation of “unbalanced” in Cost, will make the entire proposal un-awardable. All Offeror’s costs will be evaluated regardless if they fail in technical or past performance.

In the Partial SB Set-Aside pool and Offeror’s proposal responses must be assessed as “acceptable” for the Technical and Past Performance factors and assessed as “fair and reasonable” and “balanced” in their Firm Fixed Price (FFP) response to the SB Sample Task, and “realistic” and “balanced” in their Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) response to the SB Sample Task, for the Offeror to be considered as awardable. A rating of “unacceptable” in Technical or Past Performance, or an evaluation other than “fair and reasonable” or other than “realistic” in Cost, and an evaluation of “unbalanced” in Cost, will make the entire proposal un-awardable. All Offeror’s costs will be evaluated regardless if they fail in technical or past performance.

To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the Source Selection Evaluation Board's (SSEB's) evaluation of the Offerors' proposals against the evaluation factors.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded For the UNRESTRICTED pool (NAICS 334290) the Government estimates an award target number of nine (9) IDIQ contracts. For the Partial SB Set-Aside pool (NAICS 541712, 500 size standard) the Government estimates an award target number of nine (9) SB IDIQ contracts. The estimated number of awardees for each pool is for planning purposes only and the Government intends to award contracts to all Offerors evaluated as awardable. The Government reserves the right to award more or fewer than the number of contracts in each of the competition pools based upon the source selection authority's determination that it is in the Government's best interest. The Source Selection Authority's determination will be based upon an integrated evaluation of the Offeror's proposals as described herein. The Government reserves the right to make no awards based on the quality of proposals received and/or funding availability for this program.

Rejection of Offers The Government intends to strictly enforce all of the proposal submission requirements outlined in Section L. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in an Offeror’s proposal being rejected as being non-conforming to solicitation requirements. The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high in price (as defined in Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors) or unrealistically low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. No advantage will accrue to an Offeror who submits an unrealistically low offer.

Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP) The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of GFP. The contracting officer shall consider any potentially unfair competitive advantage that may result from the contractor possessing Government property. This shall be done by adjusting the offers by applying, for evaluation purposes only, a price/rental equivalent evaluation factor.

Number of Proposals for Offeror The Government shall evaluate a maximum of one (1) proposal per prime Offeror. An SB may elect to submit two proposals, one for the Partial SB Set-Aside pool and one for the UNRESTRICTED pool.

Discussions The Government intends to award contracts without discussions. However, discussions may be necessary in order for the Government to effectively understand and evaluate proposals and permit an Offeror the opportunity to clearly explain any aspects of a proposal that appear to be deficient, ambiguous or non-compliant. Nevertheless, the RFP does contain FAR 52.215-1 – Instruction to Offerors –Competitive Acquisition, which preserves the Government’s the ability to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Accordingly, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. If the CO determines them to be necessary and discussions are held, discussions will only be held with those Offerors determined to be in the competitive range.

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 awardable 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 unawardable.

Evaluation Criteria for the UNRESTRICTED and Partial Small Business (SB) Set-Aside Evaluation Factors and Subfactors and their Relative Order of Importance Awards will be made to any Offeror whose proposal is considered acceptable to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. Three factors will be used in this evaluation: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price.

UNRESTRICTED:

· Factor 1 – Technical

· Subfactor 1.1 – Design Approach

· Subfactor 1.2 – Production Approach

· Subfactor 1.3 – Technical and Security Certification(s)

· Factor 2 – Past Performance

· Factor 3 – Cost/Price SB Set-aside:

· Factor 1A – Technical

· Subfactor 1.1A – Study Approach

· Subfactor 1.2A – Security Certification(s)

· Subfactor 1.3A – Experience/Capability

· Factor 2A – Past Performance

· Factor 3A – Cost/Price Factor and Subfactor Rating Each subfactor under the Technical factor will be assigned a Technical rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. The rating depicts whether the Offeror’s proposal meets the requirements in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. The Technical ratings are described in Section M.3 for the UNRESTRICTED pool and Section M.4 for Partial SB Set-Aside pool. An evaluation other than “acceptable” in any Technical subfactors will make the entire proposal unacceptable for award.

A rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” will be assigned to the Past Performance factor as described in Section M.5 for the UNRESTRICTED pool and Section M.6 for Partial SB Set-Aside pool. Past Performance represents the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform as proposed and is based on an assessment of the Offeror’s present and past work record.

Cost/Price will be evaluated as described in Section M.7 for the UNRESTRICTED pool and M.8 for Partial SB Set-Aside pool.

The Government intends to use all three (3) of these evaluation factors to evaluate Offeror proposals: Technical Past Performance and Cost/Price.

Factor 1 – Technical for the UNRESTRICTED Pool Reference Section L.3 Each subfactor within the Technical Factor will receive a Technical rating based on the acceptability of the Offeror’s proposal (See Table M1). An evaluation rating of unacceptable in any one of the three subfactors will make the Technical Factor unacceptable and, therefore, the entire proposal unacceptable for award.

Table M1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Subfactor 1.1 –Design Approach (Sample Task 1) Reference Section L.3.2 This subfactor is met when the Offeror proposes a sound and substantiated design approach for Sample Task 1, Universal Cryptographic Module (UCM) Engineering and Manufacturing Development, that:

1) Substantiates meeting all requirements identified in the Sample Task 1 UCM System/Security Requirements Document (Section L.3.2.9);

2) Substantiates that the proposed design approach addresses all appropriate Tailored NSA IASRD and TSRD requirements for a TSAB cryptographic module, including, if applicable, rationale explaining which IASRD/TSRD requirements are not appropriate to the design approach.

3) Substantiates suitability of protection technique(s) against cryptographic attacks implemented in the proposed design approach based on performance, cost, and attack susceptibility.

4) Substantiates suitability of selected open industry (non-proprietary) standards for external interfaces in the proposed design approach based on performance, relative cost, industry acceptance, long term availability, supportability, and upgrade potential.

5) Substantiates that the proposed technologies are TRL 6 or higher (as of the start date of the sample task) as defined by the DOD Technology Readiness Assessment, April 2011 (http://www.acq.osd.mil/chieftechnologist/publications/docs/TRA2011.pdf).

6) Presents a sound and realistic Integrated Master Schedule supporting the development and certification of proposed UCM design approach and consistent with the milestone entry/exit criteria, Sample Task 1 S/SRD requirements and Design Approach WBS.

Subfactor 1.2 –Production Approach (Sample Task 2) Reference Section L.3.3 This subfactor is met when the Offeror proposes a production approach for Sample Task 2, Embeddable Cryptographic Circuit Card Assembly (ECCCA) Production, that:

1) Substantiates meeting all requirements identified in the Sample Task 2 ECCCA Production Requirements Document (L 3.3.3);

2) Offeror presents sound and realistic approach to Parts, Materials, and Processes (PMP) - parts sourcing, procurement and screening, to include Supply Chain Risk Management and the overall Trusted Systems and Networks (TSN) processes and procedures. Offeror provides a sound and realistic approach to implementation of SCRM and the overall TSN processes and procedures. Offeror demonstrates a realistic flow down of these requirements to manufacturers and suppliers.

3) Offeror substantiates the parts delivery schedule and long lead items identification.

4) Offeror presents a sound and realistic manufacturing process flow with tasks substantiated and sequenced to show how the flow supports the overall delivery schedule, to include measurement and control, security, test and risk management.

Subfactor 1.3 –Technical and Security Certification(s) Reference Section L.3.4 For technical certifications this subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates their competencies and capabilities by providing the substantiated list of all mandatory technical certifications identified in Section L.3.4, Table L-5, that:

1) Substantiates Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) technical certification requirements by providing the required documentation as identified in Section L.3.4.3.

2) Substantiates quality management certification requirements by providing the required documentation as identified in Section L.3.4.3.

3) Substantiates NSA certified product in Offeror’s name, by providing the required documentation as identified in Section L.3.4.2.

For security certifications this subfactor is met when the Offeror provides the substantiated list of the mandatory security certifications identified in Section L.3.4, Table L-5, that:

1) Substantiates security certification requirements by providing the required documentation as identified in Section L.3.4.4, and in the timeline identified in Section L.3.4.5.

Factor 1A – Technical for the Partial SB Set-Aside Pool Reference Section L.4 Each subfactor within the Technical Factor will receive a Technical rating based on the acceptability of the Offeror’s proposal (See Table M2). An evaluation rating of unacceptable in any one of the three subfactors will make the Technical Factor unacceptable and, therefore, the entire proposal unacceptable for award.

Table M2. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Subfactor 1.1A –Study Approach (SB Sample Task) Reference Section L.4.2 This subfactor is met when the Offeror proposes a sound and substantiated study approach for the SB Sample Task, that:

1) Substantiates meeting all requirements identified in the SB Sample Task, (Section L.4.2) and has a sound approach emphasis;

2) Proposes sound and substantiated key personnel (Section L.4.2.4) with the required experience, knowledge and expertise;

3) Substantiates the Contractor Statement of Work (Section L.4.2.5) and substantiates an understanding of phasing of the requirements;

4) Presents a sound and realistic Integrated Master Schedule (Section L.4.2.5) supporting the study approach and consistent with the SB Sample Task.

Subfactor 1.2A –Security Certifications Reference Section L.4.3 This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides the substantiated list of the mandatory security certifications identified in Section L.4, Table L-5, that:

1) Substantiates security certification requirements by providing the required documentation as identified in Section L.4.3.

OR

2) Substantiates security certification requirements by providing a sound and realistic Security Certification Plan to attain the security certification in a reasonable and timely manner as described in Section L.4.3.1.

Subfactor 1.3A –Experience/Capability

1) Reference Section L.4.4, the Offeror’s experience/capability is met when the Offeror demonstrates their experience and capability by providing the required documentation identified in Section L.4.4, that:

2) Substantiates experience/capability requirements by providing the required documentation as identified in Section L.4.4. Offeror presents a sound understanding of crypto-specific work Factor 2 – Past Performance for the UNRESTRICTED Pool Reference Section L.5 Past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305; however, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

The Offeror’s overall Past Performance record will receive a rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” based on the ratings in Table M3.

Table M3. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

The Offeror must ensure all the requested proposal submission information is current, accurate, and complete in accordance with Section L.5. The Offeror will be evaluated for verified relevant and recent submittals covering at least two (2) of the FIA2T SOO areas as described in L.5.2.

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; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Relevancy Verification Reference Section L.5.2 The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent past performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contractual effort involved(es) Information Assurance related products (hardware and/or software), COMSEC equipment, cryptographic key material, data distribution and management equipment, or ancillary and related equipment.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (see Table M4):

Table M4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Recency Verification Reference Section L.5.3 An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past eight (8) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Past Performance Quality Assessment Reference Section L.5.5 The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). 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. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory 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 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. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts (see Table M-5):

Table M-5. Past Performance Quality Assessments

Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table M3).

Factor 2A – Past Performance for the Partial SB Set-Aside Pool Reference Section L.6 Past performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305; however, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

The Offeror’s overall Past Performance record will receive a rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” based on the ratings in Table M6.

Table M6. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

The Offeror must ensure all the requested proposal submission information is current, accurate, and complete in accordance with Section L.6. The Offeror’s Past Performance will be evaluated for verified relevant and recent submittals with the required performance period covering FIA2T SOO area 2.1.

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; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Relevancy Verification Reference Section L.6.2 The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent past performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contractual effort involved(es) Information Assurance related products (hardware and/or software), COMSEC equipment, cryptographic key material, data distribution and management equipment, or ancillary and related equipment.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (see Table M7):

Table M7. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Recency Verification Reference Section L.6.3 An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past eight (8) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Past Performance Quality Reference Section L.6.6 The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory 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 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. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts (see Table M-8):

Table M-8. Past Performance Quality Assessments

Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table M6).

Factor 3 – Cost/Price for the UNRESTRICTED Pool Reference Section L.7 The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is reasonable and for cost reimbursable effort only, realistic. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Price Analysis, as mandated by FAR 15.404-1(b), will be used in the price evaluation of the Fixed Price Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price, given the circumstances surrounding the acquisition.

Evidence provided by the Offeror of an adequate accounting system for determining costs applicable to the contract will be verified by contacting the cognizant DCAA office.

Information Other than Cost or Pricing Data Information other than certified cost or pricing data will be evaluated to determine cost realism and reasonableness for the CPIF CLINs.

Cost/Price Reasonableness For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. The Government’s concern in making a price reasonableness determination focuses primarily on whether the offered prices are higher than warranted. IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) the Government may require submission of Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of a fair and reasonable price.

A price analysis will be conducted IAW FAR 15.404-1 in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price has been proposed. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable, and therefore, not awardable, if prices are found to not be fair and reasonable.

Cost Realism A Cost Realism analysis will be performed IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). The Government will perform a Cost Realism analysis on the CPIF CLIN. A Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC) analysis, as determined by the Cost Realism Assessment (CRA), will be performed in the realism evaluation for the CPIF CLIN only. The Government evaluation of cost realism will consider the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements, determine whether the proposal reflects a sound approach to satisfying those requirements, and whether the proposed labor escalation and indirect factors are reasonable.

In addition, the Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP) that is not included in the Sample Tasks. This will be accomplished by assessing the equivalent value (see FAR 45.2) of those resources as part of the offer. Any adjustments made resulting in the use of GFP will be captured in the GEMPC.

A significant difference between the Offeror’s proposed cost/price for the CPIF CLIN and the GEMPC will be considered an indicator that the Offeror does not understand the requirements and will be reflected in the Government’s Cost Realism analysis.

Unrealistically low proposed costs estimates, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or the Offeror has made an unrealistic proposal for the CPIF CLIN only.

The GEMPC for the CPIF CLIN, not the contractor’s proposed cost, will be used for the purpose of evaluation to determine best value. The Government will not reduce the Offeror’s proposal below the Offeror’s proposed prices in making its GEMPC adjustment.

Unbalanced Pricing Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine if they are unbalanced with respect to prices for separately priced line items despite an acceptable total evaluated price. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the price for some contract line item and significantly overstated for others. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and the offer perceived as a less than a sound technical proposal or the offer may be rejected if the Government determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

Burden of Proof The burden of proof for cost realism and price reasonableness rests with the Offeror.

Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEP) The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

i) Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) CLIN 0005 (Basic) will be evaluated at the GEMPC for target cost plus the proposed target fee. (See Section I FAR Clause 52.216.10 incentive fee information.)

ii) Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLIN 0008 (Basic) will be evaluated at the CLIN price.

iii) Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) CLIN 0001, Post-Award Conference will be evaluated at the Government established value of $5,000 Factor 3A – Cost/Price for the Partial SB Set-Aside Pool Reference Section L.8 The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is reasonable and for cost reimbursable effort only, realistic. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Price Analysis, as mandated by FAR 15.404-1(b), will be used in the price evaluation of the Fixed Price CLINs. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price, given the circumstances surrounding the acquisition.

Evidence provided by the Offeror of an adequate accounting system for determining costs applicable to the contract will be verified by contacting the cognizant DCAA office.

Information Other than Cost or Pricing Data Information other than certified cost or pricing data will be evaluated to determine cost realism and reasonableness for the CPFF CLINs.

Cost/Price Reasonableness For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. The Government’s concern in making a price reasonableness determination focuses primarily on whether the offered prices are higher than warranted. IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) the Government may require submission of Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of a fair and reasonable price.

A price analysis will be conducted IAW FAR 15.404-1 in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price has been proposed. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable, and therefore, not awardable, if prices are found to not be fair and reasonable.

Cost Realism A Cost Realism analysis will be performed IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). The Government will perform a Cost Realism analysis on the CPFF CLIN. A Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC) analysis, as determined by the Cost Realism Assessment (CRA), will be performed in the realism evaluation for the CPFF CLIN only. The Government evaluation of cost realism will consider the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements, determine whether the proposal reflects a sound approach to satisfying those requirements, and whether the proposed labor escalation and indirect factors are reasonable.

In addition, the Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP) that is not included in the Sample Tasks. This will be accomplished by assessing the equivalent value (see FAR 45.2) of those resources as part of the offer. Any adjustments made resulting in the use of GFP will be captured in the GEMPC.

A significant difference between the Offeror’s proposed cost/price for the CPFF CLIN and the GEMPC will be considered an indicator that the Offeror does not understand the requirements and will be reflected in the Government’s Cost Realism analysis.

Unrealistically low proposed costs estimates, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or the Offeror has made an unrealistic proposal for the CPFF CLIN only.

The GEMPC for the CPFF CLIN, not the contractor’s proposed cost, will be used for the purpose of evaluation to determine best value. The Government will not reduce the Offeror’s proposal below the Offeror’s proposed prices in making its GEMPC adjustment.

Unbalanced Pricing Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine if they are unbalanced with respect to prices for separately priced line items despite an acceptable total evaluated price. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the price for some contract line item and significantly overstated for others. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and the offer perceived as a less than a sound technical proposal or the offer may be rejected if the Government determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

Burden of Proof The burden of proof for cost realism and price reasonableness rests with the Offeror.

Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEP) The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

i) CPFF CLIN 0003 (Basic) will be evaluated at the GEMPC for target cost plus the proposed target fee. (See Section I FAR Clause 52.216-08 fixed fee information.)

ii) FFP CLIN 0002 will be evaluated at the CLIN price.

iii) Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) CLIN 0001, Post-Award Conference will be evaluated at the Government established value of $5,000 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions for the UNRESTRICTED and Partial Small Business (SB) Set-Aside 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 evaluation factors or subfactors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

Financial Responsibility The Offeror must be determined financially responsible based upon a Financial Capability Risk Assessment. At the discretion of the Government, DCAA will perform a Financial Capability Risk Assessment for the prime and prime’s subcontractor team members that are anticipated to perform 20 percent or more of the proposed work for future DO/TOs.

Discussions Given the nature of this acquisition, discussions may be necessary in order for the Government to effectively understand and evaluate proposals and permit an Offeror the opportunity to clearly explain any aspects of a proposal that appear to be deficient, ambiguous or non-compliant (such as completing the audit of the technical certifications). Nevertheless, the RFP does contains FAR 52.215-1 – Instruction to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition, which preserves the Government’s the ability to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Accordingly, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. If the CO determines them to be necessary and discussions are held, discussions will only be held with those Offerors determined to be in the competitive range.

Pre-award Survey The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of this solicitation.