Proposal_Requirements_and_Basis_for_Award_June_2010.pdf

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

(June 2010)

The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of an offeror’s proposal for this solicitation.

(a) Proposals shall be submitted in three (3) separate volumes as set forth below:

VOLUME PAGE LIMITS FORMAT DESCRIPTION

I Not Applicable 1 Electronic*/2 Paper Completed RFP with Clauses II Fifty (50) pages 1 Electronic*/2 paper Technical Proposal III Not Applicable 1 Electronic*/2 Paper Past/Present Performance

* CD-R or DVD-R (write once/read only). CD-R/W or DVD-R/W media types are not acceptable. Offeror shall virus-scan all media before submittal to Government.

Offerors shall prepare proposals in the following format:

1. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number and the offeror’s name and address. Proposals shall be in the English language and monies shall be proposed in United States dollars.

2. Paper size shall be 81/2” X 11.” Each page shall be numbered consecutively.

3. The page limitation for Volume II, Technical Proposal, is 50 pages. Drawings, diagrams, illustrations, supporting empirical data, etc., are included in the page count. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the 50-page limitation shall not be read and shall be removed and sent back to the offeror.

Volumes I and III do not have page limitations.

4. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

5. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

For Official Use Only

Submission of initial proposal packages via electronic mail will not be accepted. Offerors shall submit only one proposal but note the paper copies required of each volume within the proposal in paragraph (a) above.

(b) Communications. Exchanges of source selection information between the Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Electronic mail (e-mail) may be used to transmit such information only if the e-mail can be sent and encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the e-mail. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing or facsimile. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted e-mails, an offeror must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption, or, a different e-mail product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If an offeror intends to submit its source selection information via an encrypted email, it will need to contact the Buyer/Contracting Officer indicated on the face page of the solicitation, prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information). If an offeror’s computer system cannot support encryption technology, the offeror shall send the Contracting Officer correspondence, at the time that it submits its proposal, stating that it accepts the risk of sending and receiving unencrypted electronic mail.

(c) Volume I, Completed RFP and Clauses. Volume I shall consist of the completed and signed RFP with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable and therefore not considered eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information shall be appropriately completed including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP. All CLINs not directly designated as Not Separately Priced (NSP) shall be completed with a price. Proposals are due in 542 CSW/PKBB, Support Equipment and Vehicles, Major Program Contracting Office by the time and date specified in Block 8 on the face page of the RFP. The Government intends to make one award without discussions from this solicitation. Discussions, if necessary, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306 and 52.212-1. Proposals received are subject to the requirements specified in FAR 52.212-1, unless otherwise tailored in the Addendum to the solicitation.

(d) Volume II, The Technical Proposal. 1. The technical proposal shall be clear concise, and include all the information required by this provision in detailed content. Offerors shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements. Offerors are advised that the Government will base its evaluation of the technical proposals on the information presented therein; offerors shall not assume that the Government has prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, or facilities.

2. The following information shall be provided in the Technical Proposal and such will be evaluated to assess acceptability (which includes technical risk) in accordance with the provision, “Evaluation Basis for Award.”

Table of Contents, including tables and any drawings, illustrations, and/or graphs Subfactor One: Control and Safety Design

Subfactor Two: Engine Selection Subfactor Three: Hydraulic System Design Subfactor Four: Physical Characteristics

The technical proposal shall address the following subfactors. The offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risk.

Subfactor 1: Control and Safety Design. The proposal shall provide a detailed narrative on the offeror’s proposed approach to meet the control, monitoring, and safety requirements identified in paragraphs (including all subparagraphs) 3.6, 3.10, 3.13, 3.18, and 3.20 of purchase description PD07WRGBZOENF10. The narrative shall reference and provide applicable supporting documents such as calculations and conceptual drawings.

Subfactor 2: Engine Selection. (a) The proposal shall provide a detailed narrative on the offeror’s proposed approach for the selection of the diesel engine that will comply with the fuels usage requirements identified in paragraphs A.3.3.6.1 and A.3.3.6.2, and meet the fuel consumption mandates in A.3.3.6.3 of Appendix A of purchase description PD07WRGBZOENF10, while ensuring that the UHTS meets the pressure and flow requirements identified in subparagraph 3.9.1 when exposed to the performance conditions in paragraph 3.7 (including all subparagraphs); the detailed narrative shall also include information on how the engine will comply with the requirements in paragraph 3.16, and subparagraph 3.16.1 of purchase description PD07WRGBZOENF10.

(b) The proposal’s approach for the diesel engine shall include the offeror’s analysis for derating which shall address mechanical parasitic loss, multi-fuel operation, performance conditions, and the management of EPA Tier 4 engine changes to include but not limited to Tier 3 engine and parts availability, waiver plan, and Tier 4 engine certification and installation plan should Tier 3 engines become unavailable or ineligible for waiver.

The narratives in paragraphs (a) and (b) shall reference and provide applicable supporting documents such as but not limited to calculations, conceptual drawings, engine performance curves, and engine manufacturer’s data sheets.

Subfactor 3: Hydraulic System Design. The proposal shall provide a detailed narrative on the offeror’s proposed approach to meet the hydraulic system output and control requirements specified in the following purchase description PD07WRGBZOENF10 paragraphs and subparagraphs:

3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.9.3, 3.9.4, 3.9.6, 3.11.3.3, 3.11.4, 3.11.4.1, 3.11.5, 3.11.10, 3.11.12, 3.12, and 3.12.1

The proposal shall include color-coded hydraulic schematics that illustrate flows and pressures throughout each hydraulic circuit. The narrative shall reference and provide applicable supporting documents such as calculations and conceptual drawings.

Subfactor 4: Physical Characteristics. The proposal shall provide a detailed narrative on the offeror’s proposed approach to meet the weight, dimensions, and enclosure requirements identified in paragraphs (including all subparagraphs) 3.4, 3.5, and 3.14 of the purchase description PD07WRGBZOENF10. The proposal shall provide conceptual layout drawings for the completed UHTS assembly/enclosure from all sides to include top and bottom views, and the proposed location of main components such as heat exchanger(s), engine, gear box, pumps, filters, purifier, reservoir, etc. The proposed approach shall include the estimated weight calculations for the main components and the estimated center of gravity calculations for the UHTS unit.

(e) Volume III, Past/Present Performance. The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself in accordance with the format contained in the “FACTS Sheet” (RFP Attachment 1) and the following paragraphs. The Government will only accept past and present performance for the offeror only. Subcontractor performance will not be evaluated.

(1) a. The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate section (e.g., 3-ring binder) labeled, "Volume III - Present and Past Performance Information." Offerors shall complete a separate FACTS Sheet for each active or completed contract (with preferably at least one year of performance history) in the past six years that the offeror considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such contracts exceeds three the offeror shall address its three most recent and relevant contracts.

Note: If the contract an offeror is submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (e.g., an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), only after issuance of a delivery/task order does performance occur. Given this, an individual order (or orders) under the basic ordering contract should be submitted in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. Each submitted order shall be considered a separate effort unless information is provided indicating follow-on or series of orders for continued performance of the same scope and such can be verified by the user/customer. In this event, such submitted multiple orders shall be considered as a single effort for evaluation purposes. For all submittals, the performance on efforts identified shall be restricted to those completed or ongoing during the past six years from the issuance date of this RFP. The offeror's present and past performance information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions or corporate management, if such resources will be used in the performance of the proposed effort. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local governments or their agencies, and commercial customers. Offerors that are newly formed entities who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, may demonstrate the performance of such key personnel by submitting FACTS Sheets for three of their most recent and relevant contracts under which such key personnel performed the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition. Note, however, that the quality of the key personnel’s performance under the submitted contract must be able to be verified by the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) in order to be considered in the assessment of confidence.

b. Include relevant information concerning the offeror’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of

Small Business Concerns if this clause was contained in any of the three contract efforts identified in Volume III, Performance Information, of the offeror’s proposal. If the clause was not included in any of the three contracts, submit this information on two (2) additional contracts which contained the clause. Note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors. Address whether or not the offeror carried out the policy of the United States in the awarding of 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.

(2) The offeror shall focus its FACTS Sheet responses so that they clearly correlate present and past performance with the requirements of this RFP. The FACTS Sheet submitted by the offeror must clearly describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed. The offeror may expand the answering space on the FACTS Sheet so that the filled-in FACTS Sheet for each relevant contract covers no more than both sides of two 8 ½ x 11 inch pages. The offeror shall provide the most current information for the Points of Contact (POCs) identified on the FACTS Sheets.

(3) In addition to the FACTS Sheets, offerors shall include two spreadsheet pages in their Volume III that lists all the contracts that the offeror is performing or has performed in the past five years. If the listing(s) of contracts exceeds two pages, only the most recent contracts ongoing/completed shall be listed. The purpose of the spreadsheet is to capture the total scope of work (whether the offeror deems the work relevant or not to this instant

RFP) that the offeror has ongoing or has completed in the past five years. The Government may obtain and use performance information on any or none of these programs. The spreadsheet(s) shall include (as a minimum) current information as follows:

Contract Number Brief Description of Program Status Brief Program Description, include Relevancy and Quantities Periods of Performance Contracting Agency or Customer Maximum Total Estimated Dollars Phone & Fax Numbers of at least 2 Points of Contact

(4) If problems were encountered during the performance of the identified contracts, provide evidence of the offeror's ability to isolate the root causes of problems and include in the FACTS Sheet a description of programs or actions taken to resolve those causes. Problems not addressed by the offeror, but found by the Government during the evaluation of the information in this volume, will be assumed to still exist. Note: In the case of Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), if the offeror’s input has already been provided and the rationale/ circumstances have not changed, DO NOT repeat them here.

(5) The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (RFP Attachment 2) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s). The offeror shall send out the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires to each of the points of contact identified on the FACTS Sheets. The responsibility to send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror, and shall not be delegated to any other entity. The Transmittal Letter (RFP Attachment 4) shall be used by the offeror in sending out the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires. The offeror shall exert its best efforts to ensure that at least two POCs, per relevant contract, submit a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than the date established in this RFP. Each of the offeror’s POCs may submit its completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire either electronically, by fax or by mail. If sending electronically, follow the procedures outlined in paragraph (c) above, and e-mail to or Brandi,Moody@robins.af.milor Lauren.Farrell@robins.af.mil. If mailing, the POCs may return the completed questionnaire via mail to:

542 CSW/PKBB

Attn: Brandi Moody or Lauren Farrell 460 Richard Ray Blvd, Suite 200 Robins AFB GA 31098-1813

If mailing, the outside envelope must be marked as follows:

NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

POCs may send the completed questionnaires via telefax numbers to (478) 222-1854. Please have your POCs call Brandi Moody, (478) 222-1910 or Lauren Farrell, (478) 222-1906 before telefaxing their response.

Once the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. Questionnaires shall be sent to and best efforts made to ensure completion, and submission directly back to the Government from at least two of the following:

(a) Procuring Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator or equivalent

(b) Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

(c) Administrative Contracting Officer/Administrator or equivalent

(d) Other (As specified in your FACTS Sheet)

(6) In the event that commercial contracts are presented as present/past performance sources of information, a client authorization letter shall be issued to those commercial POCs requesting and authorizing them to complete a Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (Attachment 5 to this RFP). The offeror is required to send the client authorization letter(s) with the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire(s) to each POC on commercial contracts. A separate copy of client authorization letter(s) for each commercial contract shall be included in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance submission for the Government’s use in case additional questionnaires need to be sent by the Government after RFP closing.

(7) A Present/Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record (RFP Attachment 3) or equivalent form, containing the same information, shall be maintained by the offeror, documenting all exchanges between and follow-ups made to each of the POCs identified in the FACTS Sheets. All Present/Past Performance Questionnaire Tracking Records shall be submitted with the offeror’s Present/Past Performance Volume. This exchange/contact between the offeror and its POCs shall cease upon submission of the offeror’s proposal to the Government in response to this RFP. The Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the Tracking Records or in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance Volume. The Government may obtain other information by sending out additional questionnaires and/or through other sources.

(8) RFP Attachments 1, 2, and 3 (FACTS Sheet, Past/Present Performance Questionnaire, and Performance Questionnaire Tracking Record) shall include the following legend on each page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Attachments 4 and 5 (Transmittal Letter and Client Authorization) do not require the legend as the forms comprise internal documents between the offeror and its customers.

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

(June 2010)

(a) This acquisition will utilize the Performance/Price with technical proposals Tradeoff (PPT with technical proposals) source selection procedures to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs will be made between past and present performance and price, with past and present performance being slightly more important than price though price remains an important consideration in the best value award decision.

(b) 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. The Government will make one award from the RFP to one offeror. The Government intends to award without discussions. Discussions, if necessary, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306 and 52.212-1. Award will be made to one responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements such as terms and conditions, meets all the requirements set forth in the RFP, provides representations and certifications as required, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in this provision. Contract terms and conditions are specified in FAR 52.212-4 unless otherwise tailored in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

(c) The PPT with technical proposal s will be accomplished as follows:

1. Technical Acceptability. Each offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of Purchase Description PD07WRGBZOENF10 based on the subfactors identified below and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks, if any. For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks.

Subfactor 1: Control and Safety Design. Subfactor 1 is met when the proposal provides an acceptable approach for the design of the control, monitoring, and safety requirements via detailed narrative and supporting documentation such as conceptual drawings and calculations, to demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (including all subparagraphs) 3.6, 3.10, 3.13, 3.18, and 3.20 of purchase description PD07WRGBZOENF10.

Subfactor 2: Engine Selection. Subfactor 2 is met when: (a) the proposal provides an acceptable approach for the diesel engine, via detailed narrative and supporting documentation such as calculations, conceptual drawings, engine performance curves, and engine manufacturer’s data sheets, to demonstrate compliance with the fuels usage requirements identified in paragraphs A.3.3.6.1 and A.3.3.6.2 and fuel consumption mandates in A.3.3.6.3 of Appendix A of purchase description PD07WRGBZOENF10 while also complying with the pressure and flow requirements identified in subparagraph 3.9.1 when the UHTS is exposed to performance conditions in paragraph (including all subparagraphs) 3.7; and, the proposed approach demonstrates compliance with the diesel engine requirements in paragraph 3.16, and subparagraph 3.16.1 of purchase description PD07WRGBZOENF10.

(b) the proposed approach for engine selection includes a feasible, sound, and acceptable analysis for derating which considers the mechanical parasitic loss, multi-fuel operation, performance conditions, and the management of EPA Tier 4 engine changes to include but not limited to Tier 3 engine and parts availability, waiver plan, and Tier 4 engine certification and installation plan should Tier 3 engines become unavailable or ineligible for waiver.

Subfactor 3: Hydraulic System Design. Subfactor 3 is met when the proposal provides an acceptable approach for the design of the hydraulic system via detailed narrative, with supporting documentation such as calculations and conceptual drawings, and color-coded hydraulic schematics for each hydraulic circuit to demonstrate compliance with the following purchase description PD07WRGBZOENF10 paragraphs and subparagraphs:

3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.9.3, 3.9.4, 3.9.6, 3.11.3.3, 3.11.4, 3.11.4.1, 3.11.5, 3.11.10, 3.11.12, 3.12, and 3.12.1

Subfactor 4: Physical Characteristics. Subfactor 4 is met when the proposal, via detailed narrative and conceptual layout drawings for the completed UHTS assembly/enclosure from all sides to include top and bottom views, and the proposed location of main components such as heat exchanger(s), engine, gear box, pumps, filters, purifier, reservoir, etc., provides an acceptable approach to meet the weight, dimensions, and enclosure requirements identified in paragraphs (including all subparagraphs) 3.4, 3.5, and 3.14 of the purchase description PD07WRGBZOENF10, and the approach provides sound, feasible, and acceptable information on the estimated weight calculations for the main components and the estimated center of gravity for the UHTS unit.

Technical risk will be a part of the criteria considered in the acceptability decision. Technical risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degraded performance, the needed for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation will address the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not acceptable. Proposals may be determined unacceptable even though the minimum requirements are met if the proposed approach poses too great a risk.

2. Performance. The present and past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. More recent and more relevant performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance.The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained, and is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

The Government will consider an offeror’s contracts as well as all the information it is able to obtain on an offeror’s past and present performance record in determining the overall confidence assessment. The Government will not evaluate any party’s past and present performance except the offeror. The Government will not evaluate a subcontractor’s past and present performance record. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III:

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance efforts involving the design, testing, and production of a portable hydraulic test stand, diesel or electric powered, the test stand having but not limited to: a total weight of no more than 9,000 pounds, two or more independent hydraulic fluid systems, each of which have the capability to independently deliver various flow and pressure combinations with rated working pressure of no less than no less than 0-27 gpm @ 250-3,000 psi or no less than 0-15 gpm @ 250-5,000 psi for each independent hydraulic fluid system and such work encompassed essentially the same magnitude of work and complexities that this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT: Present/past performance efforts involving the design, testing, and production of a portable or stationary hydraulic fluid or combustible fuel test stand, diesel or electric powered, that contains one or more independent fluid systems, each of which have the capability to independently deliver various flow and pressure combinations with rated working pressure of no less than 250-3,000 psi, and the work encompassed much of the magnitude of work and complexities that this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance efforts involving the production and/or remanufacturing of a portable or stationary high pressure fluid pumping stand, diesel or electric powered, that includes one or more independent fluid systems, each of which have the capability to independently deliver various flow and pressure combinations, and the efforts encompassed some of the magnitude of work and complexities that this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance efforts involving little or none of the magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Note: Offerors are advised that “magnitude of effort and complexities” in the above definitions denotes not only technical features and characteristics but also programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to quantities produced, dollar values, type of contract, length of effort, testing requirements, type and complexity of data contractually required of the offeror, etc.

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

(i) Information utilized may be obtained from the references listed in the proposal, as well as from other sources known to the Government. Though the “Proposal Requirements” provision requires offerors to address the three most relevant contracts, the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Performance Volume. The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), other Government contracting offices, or commercial sources.

(ii) The Government will provide offerors with an opportunity to address adverse past and present performance information if the offeror 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 offeror’s overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(iii) For offerors that are newly formed entities, who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the PCAG will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition.

(iv) Subsequent to the Government’s assignment of relevancy ratings to each effort identified in the offeror’s Volume III, the Government will make a confidence determination of the offeror’s capabilities to successfully perform the Universal Hydraulic Test Stand effort. Confidence assessments will be determined from all the information provided by the offeror as well as information that the Government obtains from the offeror’s customers, Government databases, and other credible sources. 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. That is, an offeror’s three 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 more accurately reflect a higher relevancy rating.

In this situation, work performed in aggregate will be considered in the assignment of a confidence assessment rating.

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offerors without a record of past or present performance or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating. A strong record of recent and relevant past and present performance may be considered more advantangeous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

(v) Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past and present performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, for the efforts submitted for evaluation in its Volume III. The Government will review the offerors’ performance to ascertain if the offeror carried out the policy of the United States in the awarding of 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. Note that FAR clause 52.219-8 applies to ALL offerors.

3. Cost/Price. The Government will evaluate each offeror's proposed prices submitted in Volume I, Completed RFP, for reasonableness and balance as discussed in the following paragraphs (1) and (2). Offerors are advised that in order to ascertain reasonable and balanced pricing, the Government will not accept “Not Separately Priced (NSP)”on any line items other than those already designated as “NSP” in the Schedule. Offerors are advised to review all data items and ensure that they are proposing to the specific data requirements and level of effort involved. For data items, where the quantity of (1) one lot is specified, the quantity of (1) one shall be used. The Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror’s proposed prices in accordance with paragraph (iii) below.

(i) 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 and/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.

(ii) Balance: 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 the proposed prices 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. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing; offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(iii) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will utilize the following methodology to determine the TEP of each proposal. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes. Offerors are reminded that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options. The TEP will be calculated as follows:

(a) For price proposals that do not have multiple quantity ranges for any CLINs: The Government will multiply the identified quantity by the proposed unit price to obtain an extended price for each CLIN (and Sub-CLIN). For those proposals that do not identify specific quantity ranges and only propose one price for the entire BEQ amount, the Government will consider that range to be 1 to the BEQ amount. The sum of all the CLINs (and Sub-CLINs) will represent the evaluated price for that contract period. The TEP will be determined by adding the price of the Basic Contract Period to the price of each Option Period.

(b) For price proposals that have multiple quantity ranges for CLINs 0012, 0013, 0014, 0015, 1001-1002, 1004-1005, 2001-2002, 2004-2005, 3001-3002, 3004-3005, 4001-4002, 4004-4005, 5001- 5002, 5004-5005, 6001-6002, 6004-6005, and 7001-7002, 7004-7005: The Government will multiply the proposed range unit price(s) by the quantity included in each range to obtain an evaluated price for that CLIN (and Sub-CLIN). Ranges will not exceed the BEQ. For the CLINs that do not utilize quantity ranges, the Government will multiply the identified quantity by the proposed unit price to obtain an evaluated price for each CLIN (and Sub-CLIN). The sum of all CLINs (and Sub-CLINs) for each contract period (basic and all options) will represent the evaluated price for that contract period. The TEP will be determined by adding the evaluated price of the Basic Contract Period to the price of each Option Period.

Illustration Only

QUANTITY RANGE EXAMPLE

CLIN From To Quantity Per Range Unit Price Total Price X00X 1 10 10 $100 $1,000

11 30 20 $90 $1,800 31 60 30 $85 $2,550

Total Evaluated Price for CLIN X00X $5,350