FA853311R31160______0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

J

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

FA8533-11-R-31160-0003

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

6 JAN 2012

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE

WR ALC GRVKBB, MAJOR PROGRAMS

460 RICHARD RAY BLVD STE 200

BLDG 301 CP 478 222 1902

ROBINS AFB GA 31098-1813

BUYER: Brandi R. Matlock/GRVKBB Brandi.Matlock@robins.af.mil Phone: (478) 926- 2241 Fax: (478) 222-1854 No Collect Calls

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODEFA8533

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

CODE

X

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

FA853311R31160

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

30-NOV-2011

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods. ( a ) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; ( b ) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or ( c ) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return 1 copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

ROUTINE

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

BY ________________________________________________________

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY ____________________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

FACILITY CODE

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PRESCRIBED BY GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

X

X X

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

Amendment/Modification FA8533-11-R-31160-0003

Continuation of block 14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate the revised RFP provision "Evaluation Basis for Award"; incorporate the revised Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for Training Materials (ELIN A006); incorporate PD10WRGBGBEA34, Revision D, dated 6 Jan 2012; incorporate SubCLINs 0005AC and 0005AD; correct the ELIN reference for SubCLIN 0005AB; and revise the units of issue for CLINs 1051, 1054-1057, 1060, and 1064 - 1067 as shown below:

A) The revised RFP provision "Evaluation Basis for Award" is hereby incorporated as shown on the following pages. The change to this provision is for clarification purposes only relative to the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

B) The revised CDRL, ELIN A006 for Training Materials, dated 19 December 2011, is hereby incorporated as attached.

C) Purchase Description (PD) PD10WRGBGBEA34, Revision D, dated 6 Jan 2012, is hereby incorporated as attached.

D) SubCLINs 0005AC and 0005AD are hereby incorporated as shown on the following pages.

E) The ELIN reference for SubCLIN 0005AB, Computer Software Flowchart, is hereby changed as follows:

FROM: ELIN C005

TO: ELIN C003

F) The units of issue for CLINs (and all SubCLINs) 1051, 1054-1057, 1060, and 1064 - 1067 are hereby revised as follows:

FROM

1051AA - 1051AD 4 EA

1054AA - 1054AD 4 EA

1055AA - 1055AD 4 EA

1056AA - 1056AD 4 EA

1057AA - 1057AD 22 EA

1060AA - 1060AD 22 EA

1064AA - 1064AD 22 EA

1065AA - 1065AD 4 EA

1066AA - 1066AD 4 EA

1067AA - 1067AD 22 EA

TO

1051AA - 1051AD 4 LO

Amendment/Modification FA8533-11-R-31160-0003

1054AA - 1054AD 4 LO

1055AA - 1055AD 4 LO

1056AA - 1056AD 4 LO

1057AA - 1057AD 22 LO

1060AA - 1060AD 22 LO

1064AA - 1064AD 22 LO

1065AA - 1065AD 4 LO

1066AA - 1066AD 4 LO

1067AA - 1067AD 22 LO

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

END OF AMENDMENT

Request for Proposal FA8533-11-R-31160-0003

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

DATA IN SUPPORT OF CLIN 0002

Item No.

0005AC

Firm Fixed Price Quantity U/I Unit Price Amount

1 LO

ELIN E001, Logistics Management Information (LMI) Data Product(s) In accordance with DD Form 1423 Purchase Request(s) PR Line Item(s)

TBD TBD

Exhibit: E

Transportation From Continental United States CONUS (CONUS) Sources

TYPE / SHIP TO CODE F.O.B.

+ IAW DD 1423 DESTINATION

Type / Ship To Quantity (U/I) *ARO IAW DD 1423 _ Req No / Pri

Required Delivery

+ IAW DD 1423 1 LO

Proposed Delivery

+ IAW DD 1423 1 LO

Item No.

0005AD

Firm Fixed Price Quantity U/I Unit Price Amount

1 LO

ELIN E002, Supplemental Data for Provisioning (SDFP) In accordance with DD Form 1423 Purchase Request(s) PR Line Item(s)

TBD TBD

Exhibit: E

Transportation From Continental United States CONUS (CONUS) Sources

TYPE / SHIP TO CODE F.O.B.

+ IAW DD 1423 DESTINATION

Type / Ship To Quantity (U/I) *ARO IAW DD 1423 _ Req No / Pri

Required Delivery

+ IAW DD 1423 1 LO

Proposed Delivery

+ IAW DD 1423 1 LO

SHIP TO / PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

TYPE/CODE: + IAW DD 1423

MARK FOR: (See Individual Line Item) REQUISITION NUMBER: (See Individual Line Item) REQUISITION PRIORITY: (See Individual Line Item)

AWARD NUMBER:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS OR ATTACHMENTS

Form Number Description/File Name Date Number of Pages DD FORM 1423 Contract Data Requirements List: Training

Materials (ELIN A006)

19DEC2011 1

PD10WRGBGBEA34 Rev D 06JAN2012 6

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

REPRESENTATIONS, INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATIONS

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

(December 2011)

(a) This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff Source Selection Process in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures (DFARS 215.300) and other related FAR 15 supplements to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government will make a determination of acceptability or unacceptability on offerors’ technical proposals and small business participation volumes. For those offerors whose technical proposals and small business participation volumes are determined to be acceptable, tradeoffs will be made between past and present performance and price. Past and present performance is considered to be approximately equal to 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 contract award to one offeror. The Government will conduct discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306; however the Government reserves the right to award without discussions. If the Contracting Officer, in conjunction with the Source Selection Authority, determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the number of proposals in the competitive range may be limited to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. 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.

(c) The Tradeoff Source Selection evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

1. Technical Acceptability Factor.

(a) The combined technical/risk rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. 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 (PD) PD10WRGBGBEA based on the subfactors identified below and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal must address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify any risks associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risk. The Government will determine a proposal to be compliant and acceptable when it meets the specifications identified in the PD.

(b) The Government will evaluate the subfactors in each technical proposal as follows:

Subfactor One: Hardware Performance Requirements. This subfactor is met when the proposal has identified an acceptable preliminary approach for the design, selection, and implementation of instrumentation to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (including subparagraphs) 3.2.4 of PD PD10WRGBGBEA34. Detailed narrative discussions and supporting documentation such as but not limited to performance specification analysis, LRU testing requirements analysis, and conceptual drawings/illustrations of the instrumentation has been provided.

Subfactor Two: Software Requirements. This subfactor is met when the proposal has identified an acceptable preliminary approach for the design and implementation of a software environment with open architecture to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (and subparagraphs) 3.2.6 of PD PD10WRGBGBEA34. Detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation such as but not limited to conceptual drawings/illustrations of the software architecture, interface diagrams, and indentification of commercial software environments have been provided.

Subfactor Three: LRU Simulation Requirements. This subfactor is met when the proposal has identified an acceptable preliminary approach for the design, selection, and implementation of instrumentation to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (including subparagraphs) 3.7 of PD PD10WRGBGBEA34. Detailed narrative discussions and supporting documentations such as but not limited to performance specification analysis, LRU testing/simulation requirements analysis, and conceptual drawings/illustrations has been provided.

Subfactor Four: Synthetic Instrumentation. This subfactor is met when the proposal has identified an acceptable preliminary approach for the design, selection, and implementation of synthetic instrumentation to demonstrate compliance with paragraphs 3.1.1 and 3.4.1.1 of PD PD10WRGBGBEA34.

Detailed narrative discussions and supporting documentation such as but not limited to performance specification analysis, LRU testing requirements analysis, and conceptual drawings, illustrations of the instrumentation has been provided.

Subfactor Five: LRU TPS Requirements. This subfactor is met when the proposal has identified an acceptable preliminary approach for the design of TPSs to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (including subparagraphs) 3.6 of PD PD10WRGBGBEA34. Detailed narrative discussions and supporting documentation such as but not limited to LRU I/O and testing requirements analysis, ATE resource allocation, and functional grouping of tests has been provided.

(c) Based on the results of the technical proposal evaluations, the Government will assign one of the following two ratings to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an acceptable rating for each subfactor.

Acceptable: The proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: The proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2. Small Business Participation Factor. The Government will evaluate proposals for the Small Business Participation Factor on an acceptable or unacceptable basis according to the ratings identified in this paragraph. The description of the subcontracted work to be performed by proposed small businesses, historically black colleges or universities, and minority institutions in addition to the associated goals, expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracting dollars, shall be identified. The evaluation will consider: a) the extent to which an offeror/joint venture partner/critical subcontractor identifies and proposes to utilize the small businesses, historically black colleges or universities, and minority institutions; and b) the extent to which the identified goals compare with those of the Department of Defense, Office of Small Business Programs (http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/goals.htm). If limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities, adequate rationale shall have been provided.

Acceptable: The proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: The proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

3. Past and Present Performance Factor. The past and present performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor, teaming contractor, and/or joint venture partner), other than the offeror itself, that will perform 30% or more of the design/development, testing, and production of Test Program Sets (TPSs) in the B-1 ARTS requirement (See the definition of TPS as applied to this program). The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ 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. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past seven years from the issuance date of this RFP. 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 submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume IV:

Very Relevant: Present and/or past performance efforts that involved:

1) the design/development and testing and production - or –

2) the design, testing, and modification* of an Automatic Test Equipment (ATE)* system or Test Program Set (TPS)* used for the testing and fault diagnosis of Line Replacement Units (LRUs) in each of the four capabilities of an integrated electronic warfare defensive avionics system* (see definition), and the efforts encompassed essentially the same scope and magnitude of work and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Present and/or past performance efforts that involved;

1) the design/development and testing and production – or –

2) the design, testing, and modification – or –

3) the testing and repair/overhaul* of an ATE system or TPS used for the testing and fault diagnosis of electronic warfare defensive avionics system LRUs, and the efforts encompassed similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant: Present and/or past performance efforts that involved:

14. the testing and production – or –

15. testing and modification – or –

3) testing and repair/overhaul of an ATE system or TPS used for the testing and fault diagnosis of avionics radio frequency or radar LRUs, and the efforts encompassed some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant: Present and/or past performance efforts that involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities that this solicitation requires.

Note: “Scope and 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.

*Definitions of Terms as Applied in the B-1 ARTS RFP

ATE: ATE System is one with hardware and its operating software; hardware being comprised of test and measurement instruments, power sources, and switching assemblies with the capability of being operated under control of test software by the ATE computer (or controller) to provide a stimulus to a particular circuit or component in the unit under test (UUT), and then measure the response at various pins, ports, or connections to determine if the UUT has performed to its specifications.

TPS: the test program software and hardware (including interface hardware, holding fixtures, and cables) and the documentation required to interface with and test individual weapon system component items using ATE hardware or an integrated ATE system as the source(s) of instrumentation.

Integrated electronic warfare Defensive Avionics System (DAS): system based on radio-frequency or radar technology that has all of the following capabilities: (1) radar warning (threat detection), (2) signals collection (antennas and sensors), (3) analysis (data processing), and (4) countermeasures (jamming) functions. The capabilities are integrated into a single system to collectively accomplish aircraft level threat warning and defensive electronic countermeasure. Examples of an integrated electronics warfare DAS include but are not limited to the AN/ALQ-161, the F-22 integrated EW system (INEWS), and the F-35

INEWS.

Modification: physical and/or functional change to an ATE system involving the replacement and integration of ATE hardware, specifically measurement and/or stimulus instruments, power sources, and/or switching assemblies. It does not include the replacement of a component with form, fit, and function on any Circuit Card Assemblies.

Repair/Overhaul: troubleshooting and fault diagnosis of an ATE system and implementation of subsequent maintenance actions to render the ATE system as fully functional. It does not include maintenance or repair actions of the individual ATE hardware items such as instruments, power sources, or switching assemblies.

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

(i) The Government’s evaluation is not limited to review of the offeror’s performance volume. The evaluation may include performance information from other sources such as the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial customers, vendors, and other such sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

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

(iii) For offerors/joint venture partners or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than seven years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past or present 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 Government will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition, and the performance occurred during the past seven years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture partner, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor.

(iv) Subsequent to the Government’s assignment of relevancy ratings to each effort identified in the offeror’s Volume IV, the Government will make a confidence determination of the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ capabilities to successfully perform the ARTS effort. Confidence assessments will be determined from all the information provided by the offeror/joint venture partner as well as information that the Government obtains from their customers, Government databases, and other credible sources. The Government may consider an offeror’s/joint venture partners’ contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence rating should the past and present performance data lend itself to this approach. That is, if an offeror’s/joint venture partners’ three contracts were performed concurrently (in part or in whole), such may be considered in the assignment of the overall confidence rating. 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 partners’ respective role and their work in aggregate as well as the critical subcontractor’s role and its work in aggregate, a confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the team as a whole.

The following performance confidence assessment ratings apply:

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

Unknown Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the (Neutral) offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful 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 rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating. A strong record of recent and relevant performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

(v) Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider if the past and present performance information demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture partner’s (and critical subcontractor’s if applicable) 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 contracts identified via FACTS Sheets in Volume IV. The Government will review the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ and critical subcontractor’s performance on the three contracts to ascertain if the offeror/joint venture partner (and critical subcontractor if applicable) 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 (SDB) 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 whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses. If none of the submitted contracts included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address if it was the offeror’s intent to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, SDB concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

4. 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 (i) and (ii).

Offerors are reminded that in order to maintain reasonable/balanced pricing, the Government will not accept “Not Separately Priced (NSP)”, No Charge (NC), $0, etc. 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 one (1) lot is specified, the quantity of one (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. Offerors who elected not to waive the preference identified in FAR 52.219-4 will be evaluated by adding a factor of 10 percent to the price of all other offers. The factor of 10 percent shall be applied on a line item basis or to any group of line items on which award may be made. The 10 percent factor will be added to all offers except: Offers from HUBZone small business concerns that have not waived the evaluation preference; and Otherwise successful offers from small business concerns

(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. All unit prices should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are reminded that the evaluation of the option shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option. The TEP will be calculated as follows:

(a) Basic Contract Period

(i) For price proposals that do not have 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 CLINs (and Sub-CLINs) will represent the evaluated price for the basic contract period.

(ii) For price proposals that have quantity ranges for CLINs 0001, 0003AA - 0003AE, 0005AA – 0005AB, 0009AD – 0009AF, 0009AJ, 0010AA – 0010AB, and 0011 - 0014:

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). 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) will represent the evaluated price for the basic contract period.

Illustration Only:

QUANTITY RANGE EXAMPLE

CLIN FROM TO

QTY

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

Evaluated Price for CLIN $5,350

(b) Option I Period: Option I consists of four (4) years

NOTE: The BEQ amount is for the entire option CLIN. In other words, the Government does not expect to order the BEQ amount in each year within the option. For example, CLIN 1001 has a BEQ of 20 ea over the four year duration of Option I; the Government will not order 20 ea in each of the four years. Instead, a BEQ of 5 each is identified in each of the four Sub-CLINs. Therefore, for evaluation purposes, the BEQ of 5 ea will be evaluated for all years and all years’ evaluated price will be calculated and included in the TEP.

For CLINs 1024 – 1051, 1054 – 1057, 1060, 1064 – 1067, it is not known when the Government may order the items. As such, the BEQ identified for the CLIN is applicable to each of the four SubCLINs.

(i) For price proposals that do not have 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 CLINs (and Sub-CLINs) will represent the evaluated price for the Option I contract period.

Illustration Only:

CLIN FROM Year

BEQ UNIT

PRICE

TOTAL

PRICE

100X AA Within year 1 2 $100 $200 AB Within year 2 2 $110 $220 AC Within year 3 2 $120 $240 AD Within year 4 2 $140 $280

Evaluated Price for CLIN $940

(ii) For those CLINs with a quantity of 1: As noted in the Schedule, it is not known when the Government may order the item, therefore the Quantity of 1 ea is applicable to each of the four Sub-CLINs. For calculation of the TEP, the unit price proposed for each Sub-CLIN (year year) will be multiplied by 1 to calculate the evaluated price for that CLIN. For example, the Evaluated price for CLIN 1002 will be the sum of the four years’ unit prices and that is what will be added into the Government’s TEP.

(iii) For price proposals that have quantity ranges for CLINs 1001, 1024 – 1051, 1054

– 1057, 1060, and 1064 - 1067: 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). 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) will represent the evaluated price for the Option I contract period.

Illustration Only:

QUANTITY RANGE EXAMPLE

CLIN 100X – BEQ 60 ea

CLIN From To Qty Per Unit Price Total Price

Range

100XAA 1 10 10 $100 $1,000

Year 1 11 30 20 $90 $1,800

31 60 30 $85 $2,550

Evaluated Price for CLIN 100X, year 1 $5,350

100XAB 1 10 10 $150 $1,500

Year 2 11 30 20 $140 $2,800

31 60 30 $135 $4,050

Evaluated Price for CLIN 100X, year 2 $8,350

100XAC 1 10 10 $200 $2,000

Year 3 11 30 20 $190 $3,800

31 60 30 $185 $5,550

Evaluated Price for CLIN 100X, year 3 $11,350

100XAD 1 10 10 $250 $2,500

Year 4 11 30 20 $240 $4,800

31 60 30 $235 $7,050

Evaluated Price for CLIN 100X, year 4 $14,350

Evaluated Price for CLIN 100X $39,400

(c) The TEP for the proposal, as a whole, will be calculated by adding the evaluated price of the Basic Contract Period to the evaluated price of the Option I Period.

Notice to all offerors: Evaluation Preference for HUBZone IAW FAR 52.219-4 Offerors will be evaluated by adding a factor of 10 percent to the price of all offers. The factor of 10 percent shall be applied on a line item basis.

The 10 percent factor will be added to all offers except:

(i) Offers from HUBZone small business concerns that have not waived the evaluation preference (see waiver of preference below); and

(ii) Otherwise successful offers from small business concerns

Waiver of evaluation preference: A HUBZone small business concern may elect to waive the evaluation preference, in which case the 10 percent factor will be added to its offer for evaluation purposes. If a HUBZone offeror wishes to waive the evaluation preference, the offeror’s intention shall be made clear in the fill-in section of FAR 52.219-4, on pages 141 through 142.