Attch_10_Section_M_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_-_FA8505-17-R-0004.pdf

FA8505-17-R-0004

Attachment 10

Section M

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

A. Basis for Contract Award

(1) This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract for F-15 Kadena PDM as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability and small business participation acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable with acceptable small business concern utilization, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price. Past performance is considered significantly more important than cost/price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable with acceptable small business concern utilization, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph B below.

(2) The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

(3) It is the Government’s intent to award one contract for the F-15 Kadena PDM. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

(4) Offerors must complete, sign and submit with their proposal the RFP Checklist, Section L

Appendix K that has been provided. Each offeror’s proposal will be validated for completeness utilizing the RFP Checklist. Any proposal failing to submit the checklist, complete all items referenced on the checklist or complete the checklist itself may result in the offeror’s proposal being deemed non-compliant and ineligible for award.

(5) The Cross Reference Matrix, Section L Appendix D, will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document, Performance Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award). The Cross Reference Matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over the matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

B. Proposal Evaluation. The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

Factor 1: Technical Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below to determine if the technical proposal provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS.

Technical Ratings: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Table 1: Technical Ratings

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

i. Subfactor One- Technical Capabilities

The Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal adequately addressed the offeror’s ability to provide necessary skills, experience, competencies, capabilities, and facilities to meet the full range of PWS requirements. The proposal included an adequate process for risk identification, mitigation, and management. The proposal adequately addressed the offeror’s capability or strategy for the following:

a) Providing the necessary skills, functional capabilities, facilities, and equipment, beyond that provided as Government Furnished Equipment, required to accomplish the required activities for aircraft servicing and handling, Plastic Media Blast (PMB)/Paint, aircraft assembly and disassembly, parts and equipment fabrication/manufacturing, structural inspection and repair, systems test and checkout, and quality assurance monitoring and control (PWS 1.1.1, 5.1.2, 6.2, and 6.5).

b) Ensuring quality of repaired end items to Kadena AB is achieved in accordance with the contract performance management objectives and compliance with DCMA quality inspections (PWS 6.2).

c) Describing the offeror’s technical capability and expertise for each functional capability or the plan for obtaining required specialty skills and capabilities. In addition, providing documentation that the following requirements will be met prior to award (Subparagraphs of 5.13):

i. Providing current ISO 9001:2000/SAE AS 9100 (or equivalent) certification from an accredited certification body for the facility or facilities/location(s) that will be performing the work requirements (PWS 8.6.7).

ii. Providing Level II Nondestructive Inspection (NDI) certifications in accordance with AIA/NAS 410 for personnel who are to perform these inspections (PWS 5.13.5).

iii. Demonstrating contractor’s PDM facility location is/will be within 833 nautical miles of Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan (PWS 5.1.3).

ii. Subfactor Two- Management and Schedule Approach

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a satisfactory management approach to demonstrate a clear understanding of how PWS requirements will be met by submitting a management plan to address the offeror’s approach and process for areas listed below. This proposed management approach provided explicit details as to how the effort will be managed.

This proposed management approach clearly indicated a complete understanding of the required actions, anticipated workload, labor needs by type, projected travel, as well as other requirements to satisfy the requirements of the PWS. For the purposes of this solicitation, a critical subcontractor is considered any contractor other than the prime that performs PDM functions and a subcontractor is considered any contractor other than the prime that performs other than PDM functions. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrated a satisfactory management approach for each of the following requirements, as mandated in PWS:

a) The offeror’s management approach is supported by an adequate organizational chart as follows:

i. The organizational chart included critical subcontractors and delineation of efforts among the critical subcontractors.

ii. The organizational chart may or may not include names associated with roles, but should give the Government an understanding of how the offeror’s organization will be organized.

b) The offeror’s management approach provided a compliant Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) as follows (Subparagraphs of 5.15.5):

i. Provided an IMS that contains contract milestones and significant tasks/activities of Programmed Depot Maintenance to demonstrate achievability of contract objectives and integrate program activities for the first year of contract performance. IMS is top-level in nature and based on an offeror developed Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).

ii. The IMS depicted the offerors transition plan in schedule format. Included applicable tasks/activities for workload transition to include facility preparation, workforce training/certification, receipt of GFE (in accordance with FAR 45.201(b)), and other activities that must be accomplished prior to first aircraft induction. Included a notional aircraft induction/delivery schedule based on the best estimated quantities for FY18. Proposed flow-days take into account an appropriate learning curve and include flow days for completing over-and-above tasks and final aircraft checkout and Functional Check Flight.

iii. Any timeframes identified within the transition plan match timeframes within the integrated master schedule.

c) The offeror’s management approach adequately described methodology on achieving no more than 125 flow (calendar) days per aircraft (PWS 6.7).

d) The offeror’s management approach adequately addressed the offeror’s training and certification process as follows (PWS 5.6, 5.8.2, and subparagraphs of 5.14):

i. Process ensures that all contractor personnel are properly trained and qualified to perform assigned tasks and duties in accordance with applicable procedures and regulations.

ii. Described the process for documenting individual training to provide evidence that an individual has met all initial training, re-training, certification, and proficiency requirements.

iii. Provided a plan for obtaining specific training and qualifications unique to the F-15 to include compliance with DCMA Instruction 8210.2

e) The offeror’s management approach adequately addressed the offeror’s PDM facility management and contract administration of the PWS as follows (PWS 5.1.4. 5.1.5, and subparagraphs of 8.2):

i. Included the offeror’s knowledge and understanding of country’s laws, customs, licenses required and security processes as required for its personnel in the country of place of performance.

ii. Submitted evidence of having a business license in the country where the contractor’s PDM facility is located with the proposal submission to be eligible for award. Offerors who fail to supply evidence of a business license shall be deemed ineligible for award. It is not necessary for the Prime Contractor to be the holder of the business license; it is acceptable for their subcontractor and/or joint venture member to be the holder of the business license.

iii. Provided a comprehensive plan describing the facilities, systems, processes, and procedures that will be in place to ensure the safety and security of U.S.

Government property to include aircraft, equipment, material, and information.

A proposal evaluated by the Government as UNACCEPTABLE for any sub-factor, as defined in Table 1, will not be considered for award.

Factor 2: Past Performance The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture members ability (which includes the extent of its critical subcontractor(s)’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated present and past work record. For the purposes of this solicitation, a critical subcontractor is considered any contractor other than the prime that performs PDM functions and a subcontractor is considered any contractor other than the prime that performs other than PDM functions. Offeror must submit critical subcontractors’ past performance or indicate no past performance history in Volume III of the proposal.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule.

The Government may consider an offeror’s/joint venture member’s (including critical subcontractors) contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence assessment rating, should the present and past performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an offeror’s three (3) contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may reflect greater magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment. A joint venture member’s three (3) contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may reflect greater magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment. The Government may consider a critical subcontractor’s submitted contracts in the aggregate in this same manner if their submitted efforts were performed concurrently (in part or in whole). Then considering the offeror’s /joint venture member’s respective role and their work in aggregate as well as the critical subcontractor(s) role and their work in aggregate, a confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the team as a whole.

Recency Assessment: For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

Relevancy Assessment: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the three (3) recent efforts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member(s) and each of its critical subcontractors. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s/joint venture members’ opinion of relevancy. For the purposes of this solicitation, the government will consider the following relevancy factors listed in Table 2. Table 2 describes the relevancy ratings and criteria that will be assigned to each effort identified in Volume III the offeror’s proposal. Primes, critical subcontractors, and joint ventures will all be evaluated against the below relevancy ratings:

Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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

The effort must have demonstrated or included ALL of the following 4 criteria:

• Prime contractor experience

• Accomplished PDM on Fighter aircraft

• PDM requirements on nine (9) or more aircraft per year

• Depainting an aircraft using Plastic Media Blast (PMB), scuff sand, chemical and flashjet methods;

AND the effort must have included Corrosion Control and Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI); and demonstrated performance with 4 of the 5 tasks below:

• Repair

• Modification

• Execution of Time Compliance Technical Orders

• Drop-In Maintenance

• Dispatching of Contract Field Teams for repair of aircraft that require Unscheduled Depot

Level Maintenance

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

The effort must have demonstrated or included ALL of the following 3 criteria:

• Prime contractor experience

• Accomplished PDM on Fighter aircraft

• PDM requirements on five (5) to eight (8) aircraft per year;

AND the effort must have included Depainting an aircraft using Plastic Media Blast (PMB); and the effort must have demonstrated 2 of the 3 methods below:

• Depainting an aircraft using scuff sand

• Depainting an aircraft using chemical methods

• Depainting an aircraft using flashjet methods;

AND the effort must have included Corrosion Control and Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI);

and demonstrated performance with 3 of the 5 tasks below:

• Repair

• Modification

• Execution of Time Compliance Technical Orders

• Drop In Maintenance

• Dispatching of Contract Field Teams for repair of aircraft that require Unscheduled Depot Level

Maintenance

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

The effort must have included demonstrated or included ALL of the following 3 criteria:

• Prime or Subcontractor Experience

• Accomplish PDM on fixed wing aircraft

• PDM requirements on two (2) to four (4) aircraft per year;

AND the effort must have included Depainting an aircraft using Plastic Media Blast (PMB); and the effort must have demonstrated 1 of the 3 methods below:

• Depainting an aircraft using scuff sand

• Depainting an aircraft using chemical methods

• Depainting an aircraft using flashjet methods;

AND the effort must have included Corrosion Control and Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI); and demonstrated performance with 2 of the 5 tasks below:

• Repair

• Modification

• Execution of Time Compliance Technical Orders

• Drop In Maintenance

• Dispatching of Contract Field Teams for repair of aircraft that require Unscheduled Depot Level

Maintenance

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires as it meets none of the definitions provided herein for Very Relevant, Relevant or Somewhat Relevant.

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified in the above definitions, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to length of effort and dollar values.

When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical features and characteristics, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of the effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical features and characteristics in the definitions above but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of the effort, a lesser relevancy rating may be assigned.

a) In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

i. The Past Performance Evaluation Team is not limited to a review of the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance volume.

Past performance information will be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), System for Award management (SAM), and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

ii. Offerors/joint venture members/critical subcontractors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that 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 overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

b) As a result of the recency, relevancy and performance quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below in Table 3.

Table 3: Past Performance

Past Performance Factor

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation 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 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 no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation the offeror will successfully perform the effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation the offeror will be able to successfully perform the effort.

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information 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. A substantial confidence or satisfactory confidence past performance rating may be worth more to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

c) Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractor’s) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

FACTOR 3: Cost/Price Each offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and balance (see paragraphs 3.a, 3.b, and 3.c below). The total evaluated price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph 3.d as described below:

a) Reasonableness: 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 in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

b) Realism: For CRNF Material CLINs (X003), the Government will perform a realism analysis to determine a realistic cost for the proposed effort. Based on this analysis the Government will calculate a Most Probable Cost (MPC), which represents the most likely cost to the Government and may differ from the offeror’s proposed cost.

The Government will use the offerors’ Elemental Cost Breakout to compute the MPC for the Add-on Factor. The MPC will only be used in the evaluation of realism and will not be used in the calculation of the TEP. Offerors’ costs that are determined to be unrealistic and pose an unacceptable risk to the Government may be rejected.

c) Unbalanced Pricing: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items, is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each Offeror’s response to the pricing structure in the Schedule. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

d) TEP: The TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated Extended Prices/Costs of the following CLINs for the Basic and all Option periods. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

i. CLINs X001 (F-15C Labor and *F-15C/F-15D Labor) and X002 (F-

15D Labor): The sum of the Extended Prices for the underlying items will represent the total and evaluated price for each CLIN.

a. FFP Unit Price Items: The Extended Price for each item will be calculated by multiplying the offerors’ proposed Unit Price by the respective quantity for each item.

b. FFP Hourly Rate Items: The IGE for the total annual hours anticipated for each year is provided in Section L Appendix C- F-15 PDM Pricing Spreadsheet. The Government will allocate these hours to each respective item. The allocation of these hours will not be disclosed to offerors. The Extended Price for each item will be calculated by multiplying the offerors’ proposed FFP Hourly Rate by the Government’s assigned number of hours for each respective item.

* Note: For evaluation purposes only, the evaluated Extended Prices for F- 15C/F15D Models will be added to CLIN X001.

ii. CLINs X003 (Material): The IGE for the underlying items has been provided in Section L Appendix C - F-15 PDM Pricing Spreadsheet.

The sum of the Extended Costs of these items will be multiplied by the offerors’ Add-on Factor, adjusted as necessary to reflect the MPC, to derive a total Extended Cost; which will represent the evaluated price for this CLIN.

iii. CLINs X006 OPTION (Data IAW Form 1423-Reporting Actuals):

The Extended Price will be calculated by multiplying the offerors’ proposed Unit Price by the quantity.

iv. CLINs X004 (Travel) and CLINs X005 (Data IAW Form 1423):

These CLINs will not be included in the TEP.

Table 4: TEP Example

Basic:

FFP:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 0001 1 Lot $100 $100 0002 1 Lot $100 $100 0006 1 Lot $100 $100

CRNF:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost 0003 1 Lot $100 $100 Evaluated CLIN Price $400

Option I:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 1001 1 Lot $100 $100 1002 1 Lot $100 $100 1006 1 Lot $100 $100

CRNF:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost 1003 1 Lot $100 $100

Option II:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 2001 1 Lot $100 $100 2002 1 Lot $100 $100 2006 1 Lot $100 $100

CRNF:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost 2003 1 Lot $100 $100

Option III:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 3001 1 Lot $100 $100 3002 1 Lot $100 $100 3006 1 Lot $100 $100

CRNF:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost 3003 1 Lot $100 $100

Option IV:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 4001 1 Lot $100 $100 4002 1 Lot $100 $100 4006 1 Lot $100 $100

CRNF:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost 4003 1 Lot $100 $100

Option V:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 5001 1 Lot $100 $100 5002 1 Lot $100 $100 5006 1 Lot $100 $100

CRNF:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost 5003 1 Lot $100 $100

Option VI:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 6001 1 Lot $100 $100 6002 1 Lot $100 $100 6006 1 Lot $100 $100

6003 1 Lot $100 $100

Option VII:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 7001 1 Lot $100 $100 7002 1 Lot $100 $100 7006 1 Lot $100 $100

CRNF:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost 7003 1 Lot $100 $100

Option VIII:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 8001 1 Lot $100 $100 8002 1 Lot $100 $100 8006 1 Lot $100 $100

CRNF:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost 8003 1 Lot $100 $100

Option IX:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 9001 1 Lot $100 $100 9002 1 Lot $100 $100 9006 1 Lot $100 $100

CRNF:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost 9003 1 Lot $100 $100

Option X:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 9101 1 Lot $100 $100 9102 1 Lot $100 $100 9106 1 Lot $100 $100

9103 1 Lot $100 $100

Option XI:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 9201 1 Lot $100 $100 9202 1 Lot $100 $100 9206 1 Lot $100 $100

CRNF:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost 9203 1 Lot $100 $100

Option XII: (Option to Extend Services)

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Price Extended Price 9301 1 Lot $100 ($100÷2)=$50 9302 1 Lot $100 ($100÷2)=$50 9306 1 Lot $100 ($100÷2)=$50

CRNF:

CLIN Qty Unit Unit Cost Extended Cost 9303 1 Lot $100 ($100÷2)=$50 Evaluated CLIN Price $200

Total Evaluated Price $5000

e) Options: Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

FACTOR 4: Small Business Participation Factor

The Small Business Participation Plan will be applicable for only work conducted CONUS. A rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” shall be assigned to this factor utilizing the ratings and descriptions identified below. The description of the subcontracted work to be performed by proposed Small Businesses (SB), to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and woman-owned small business concerns, along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars shall be identified. The evaluation will consider the extent to which:

a) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses, to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and woman-owned small business concerns, when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided; and,

b) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by Small

Businesses, to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and woman-owned small business concerns, the company names/CAGE codes and the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided; and,

c) Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these Small Businesses and these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals. Adequate rationale may result in an acceptable plan even though the DoD Small Business Goals could not be achieved.

d) The associated goals in paragraph (2) above in the offeror’s Small Business

Utilization Plan will be evaluated against the FY16 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY 2016 goals are as follows:

Table 5: Subcontracting Goals

Subcontracting Small Business SDB WOSB SDVOSB HUB

Zone

DEPT OF

DEFENSE (9700) 34.5% 5% 5% 3% 3%

e) Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Table 6: Subcontracting Ratings

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Section M Appendices:

See Section L Appendices