DRAFT_BAT_Section_M.pdf

DRAFT – BAT SECTION M

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

14 Apr 16

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1 This acquisition will utilize the 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 as a result of this solicitation. To arrive at the best value decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection team’s evaluation of all factors and subfactors described herein.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore professional judgement is implicit through the selection process.

For those offerors who are determined to have acceptable Small Business Concern Utilization, tradeoffs will be made between Technical Acceptability with Technical Risk Rating, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. A technical acceptability determination and technical risk assessment will be performed on the offeror’s technical approach and assigned a Low, Moderate or High technical risk rating for each technical subfactor. Technically acceptable proposals with a High technical risk rating will be considered unawardable. Of those proposals deemed technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made among proposals with a Low or Moderate technical risk ratings in conjunction with Past Performance and Cost/Price. Tradeoff between Low to Moderate technical risk rating with Technical Acceptability when combined with the Past Performance is significantly more important than Cost/Price.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable with low to moderate technical risk, 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 2 and 3 below.

1.2 The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Discussions, if opened, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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.

1.3 The Cross Reference Matrix, RFP Attachment 1, will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among Section L (Instructions to Offerors), Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award), the Statement of Work (SOW), the Performance Specification, the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), and the Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs). 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 this 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.

2. Factors and Subfactors

2.1 The factors for this requirement are Technical (which includes both the Technical Acceptability and Technical Risk Ratings), Past Performance, Small Business Concern Utilization, and Cost/Price. A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed on each of the factors and subfactors. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical (which includes both Technical Acceptability and Technical Risk Ratings)

Subfactor One: Systems Engineering Unit Under Test (UUT) Analysis Risk Mitigation Plan Functional Allocation & UUT Utilization Matrix Integrated Master Schedule with Rationale

Subfactor Two: Reliability Reliability Tasks Configuration Item Reliability Risk Mitigation

Subfactor Three: Cybersecurity Cyber-Secure Design Cyber-Secure Development Environment

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Small Business Concern Utilization Factor 4: Cost/Price

Relative Importance of Each Factor and Subfactor: Within Factor 1, Technical, all three subfactors are of equal importance. Evaluation Factors 1, Technical (which includes the Technical Acceptability and Technical Risk Ratings) and 2, Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4, Cost/Price.

However, Factor 4, Cost/Price is an important consideration in the best value award decision. It should be noted that Factor 3, Small Business Concern Utilization, will be evaluated strictly on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as discussed below and therefore will not be considered in the tradeoff decision.

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

3.1 Factor 1: Technical Factor

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated based on all the technical subfactors below to determine if the technical proposal provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements set forth in the Performance Specification and Statement of Work, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The evaluation will assess the offeror’s identified risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and the actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. No extra consideration will be given to an offeror that exceeds technical requirements. One technical acceptability rating and technical risk rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be a “technically acceptable with a low or moderate technical risk” rating in every subfactor.

3.1.1 Technical Acceptability Rating

The technical acceptability rating (Table 1) reflects the Government’s evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Bomber Armament Tester requirement in each technical subfactor. Technical acceptability is to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance Specification and Statement of Work, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the technical acceptability ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, as defined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Technical Acceptability Ratings

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

3.1.2 Technical Risk Rating

The technical risk rating (Table 2) assessment reflects the Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s technical approach in all subfactors for meeting the Bomber Armament Tester requirement. The technical risk focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased contractor emphasis or Government oversight, and likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation will also address the Government’s identification of any weaknesses as well as the offeror’s identified risks. For any weaknesses identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and document why that mitigation is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as defined in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Technical Risk Ratings

TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Subfactor One: SYSTEMS ENGINEERING This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative and supporting documentation such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations, to demonstrate the offeror’s technical approach will meet the requirements identified in Performance Specification and Statement of Work paragraph requirements as follows:

UUT Analysis Risk Mitigation Plan This is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has provided a realistic Risk Mitigation Plan that addresses the scheduled activities and resources necessary for the development of the UUT Test Requirements Analysis Report required by Statement of Work, Paragraph 4.1.1(a). The risk mitigation plan shall adequately address the following UUTs:

a) Multi-Purpose Rotary Launcher (MPRL) (B-1B)

b) Conventional Bomb Module (CBM) 28-Station (B-1B)

c) 1760 Enhanced Conventional Bomb Module (SECBM) 10-Station (B-1B)

d) Common Weapons Interface Unit (CWIU) (B-1B)

e) B-1B On-Aircraft SMS testing (B-1B)

f) SUU-67/A Pylon Disconnect On-Aircraft (part of on-aircraft SMS testing) (B-52H)

g) Pylon Assy., B-52 Conventional Weapons Integration (B-52H)

h) Conventional Rotary Launcher (CRL) 1760 (B-52H)

i) Cluster Bomb Rack (CBR) (B-52H)

j) On-Aircraft SMS testing (B-52H)

Functional Allocation & UUT Utilization Matrix

This is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has provided a functional allocation of BAT Core Tester hardware and software Configuration Items (CIs) IAW Performance Specification, Paragraph 3.1.2, identification of all CIs as non-developmental or developmental, and a complete UUT Utilization Matrix that identifies all CIs by function that are required for testing of UUTs not listed in the previous bullet. Additionally, the set of CIs identified in the functional allocation is not likely to cause degradation of performance as it relates to operating temperature requirements IAW MIL-PRF- 28800F invoked by Paragraph 3.1.16 of the BAT system performance specification.

Integrated Master Schedule with Rationale This is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has provided a detailed preliminary Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for the Increment 1 EMD phase per SOW Paragraph 4.1, to include all sub paragraphs. To be acceptable, the proposed IMS must show how the Contractor will meet the Increment 1 Production Readiness Review within 27 months after contract award. The offeror must have identified and defined those assumptions used when constructing the IMS. The proposed IMS identifies the start date, duration, dependencies, and the end date for schedule activities, events, and milestones. The proposed IMS identities the critical path for Increment 1 EMD and provides acceptable schedule rationale narrative identifying, explaining, and providing mitigation plans for moderate and high risk activities and events along the critical path. The proposed IMS must identify top level schedule activities, events and milestones for Increments 2 and 3 with the duration of days from exercise of contract options to CDR and PRR IAW SOW Paragraphs 5.1.2., 5.1.7, 6.1.2, and 6.1.7.

Subfactor Two: RELIABILITY This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation, such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations, to demonstrate the offeror’s technical approach will meet the reliability requirements identified in Performance Specification, Paragraph 3.2.2.2.1.

Reliability Tasks This is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has identified reliability tasks and activities to be conducted and methods to be used with sound rationale behind why those tasks, activities and methods were chosen, and identified the key resources required to perform the tasks/activities necessary to achieve and verify the 1500 hour Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) requirement in accordance with SOW paragraph 3.4(d).

Configuration Item Reliability Risk Mitigation This is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has identified a minimum of five (5) configuration items that pose the greatest reliability risk, with sound rationale to explain why it is a risk and how design for reliability will be applied to mitigate that risk IAW SOW Paragraph 3.4(f).

Subfactor Three: CYBERSECURITY This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations, to demonstrate the offeror’s technical approach will meet the cybersecurity requirements identified in each subfactor specified in Performance Specification and Statement of Work paragraphs.

Cyber-Secure Design This is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal adequately addressed how the offeror’s proposed BAT System architectural design has a sound approach for the integration of the cybersecurity requirements identified in Performance Specification, Paragraphs 3.1.20.1 through

3.1.20.9 and 3.1.20(c).

Cyber-Secure Development Environment This is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has a sound approach that demonstrates the contractor’s implementation and maintenance of a cyber-secure development environment as defined in Statement of Work Paragraph 3.5.3.5.

4. Factor 2: Past Performance Factor

4.1 Ratings: The past performance evaluation 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 Past Performance factor will receive one performance confidence assessment rating described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, as defined in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Ratings Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

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 (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4.2 Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture member’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance work record. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s recent past performance, focusing on the quality of performance within the areas of Technical Performance, Schedule and Cost. The Past Performance evaluation considers each offeror’s/joint venture member’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including costs and schedule. The Government will evaluate the quality of an offeror’s/joint venture member’s recent performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s past performance will not include the past performance of any subcontractor’s, vendors, or suppliers, even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. In considering past performance, the Government will not consider “Key Personnel” of the offeror/joint venture member.

The Past Performance Team’s evaluation is not limited to the offeror’s/joint venture member’s Past Performance volume to assess and assign a degree of relevancy or confidence. The Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to questionnaires, Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), etc. The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as 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. 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.

4.3 Recency Assessment: An assessment of the Past Performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past ten (10) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Past performance information that does not meet this condition will not be evaluated.

4.4 RelevancyAssessment: The Government will perform an independent relevancy determination of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made of the three (3) recent efforts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member. For purposes of this solicitation, the Government will consider the following relevancy factors listed in Table 4, as well as logistic and programmatic considerations included in the note immediately following the table. The Government may consider an offeror’s/joint venture member’s identified efforts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence assessment rating, should the past performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an offeror’s/joint venture member’s three (3) efforts may, by definition, represent only a rating less than very relevant when each one 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 overall confidence assessment rating. One confidence assessment rating will be assigned to each offeror/joint venture member arrangement. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s/joint venture member’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy rating criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in the offeror’s/joint venture member’s Volume III of its proposal package.

Table 4: Relevancy Ratings

RELEVANCY RATINGS

Ratings Description

Very Relevant

Past performance effort involving essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Very relevant efforts must have involved the design, development, and production of at least one (1) Mission Design Series (MDS) organizational-level United States Air Force (USAF) fighter or USAF bomber, armament automatic test system [core tester, core software, Test Program Sets (TPS) (Unit Under Test (UUT) test software and Interface Test Adaptor (ITA))], that is listed on the Master Nuclear Certification List (MNCL)

Relevant

Past performance effort involving similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts must have involved the design, development, and production of at least one (1) MDS organizational-level Department of Defense (DoD) fighter or USAF bomber armament automatic tester (core tester and core software) or an organizational-level DoD fighter or USAF bomber armament TPS (UUT test software and ITA)

Somewhat Relevant

Past performance effort involving some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat relevant efforts must have involved the design, development, and production of an organizational or intermediate-level armament or avionics automatic tester, or organizational or intermediate-level armament or avionics TPSs (UUT test software and ITA)

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

NOTE 1: The definition of Avionics used in the above table denotes that which tests the electronics systems used on airborne systems. The definition of Armament used in the above table denotes that which tests the offensive and defensive armament control and release systems.

NOTE 2: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified for each effort in the above definitions, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations, including (but not limited to) the quantity of testers or UUT TPSs produced, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables, etc. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical features and complexities and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of 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 may be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical features and characteristics but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating may be assigned.

5. Performance Quality Assessment

5.1 Performance Quality Assessment: For each recent and relevant past performance effort reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed in the areas of Technical Performance, Schedule and Cost. The quality assessment and resulting rating consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The performance quality rating may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will be considered only when objectively measurable improvements in performance were implemented and demonstrated. Offerors/joint venture members shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror/joint venture member 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 performance quality 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. The Government will assess and assign a Performance Quality Rating of recent and relevant efforts as defined in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Performance Quality Rating Table

PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

Ratings Description

E Exceptional/Blue

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

G Very Good/Purple During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

S Satisfactory/Green During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

M Marginal/Yellow

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

U Unsatisfactory/Re d

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was required.

N Neutral/White Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect.

Do not know.

5.2 Assignment Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessment of the recent past performance efforts evaluated, the offerors/joint venture members will be assigned a single integrated performance confidence assessment rating for the past performance factor as defined in Table 3. Offerors/joint venture members 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 an “Unknown Confidence” rating. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture member’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, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member 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/or women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 applies to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses). If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror included these clauses when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror’s/joint venture member’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.

6. Factor 3: Small Business Concern Utilization Factor The Small Business Concern Utilization factor rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” shall be assigned to this factor utilizing the ratings in Table 6 and the descriptions identified below. The evaluation will consider the extent to which:

i) 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 existed is provided; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by small businesses, 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, along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided;

and,

iii) Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these small business and socio-economic entities. Offerors/joint venture members are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

iv) The associated goals in Paragraph ii above in the offeror’s Small Business Utilization Plan will be evaluated against the FY15 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals, as defined in Table 7 below.

Table 6: Small Business Utilization Concern

Table 7: DoD FY15 Small Business Subcontracting Goals

DoD FY15 Small Business Subcontracting Goals Business Size Sub

Small Business 36.0%

SDB 5%

WOSB 5%

SDVOSB 3%

HUBZone 3%

7. Factor IV: Cost/Price Factor

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal, for reasonableness, balance, cost realism, and Total Evaluated Probable Cost/Price for the entire solicited effort, including all options. Cost realism issues and the total evaluated probable cost/price will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the best value determination. Cost/Price will not receive an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s cost/price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404.

The offeror’s (Prime and Major Subcontractors) proposed unit costs/prices in RFP Attachment 9, Excel Price Model, will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and total evaluated price (TEP) calculation in accordance with

SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION CONCERN RATINGS

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 below. The offeror’s (Prime and Major Subcontractors) proposed costs in RFP Attachment 12, Excel Cost Model, Cost Formats A, B, and C, will be evaluated for cost realism in accordance with Paragraph 3 below. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are advised that evaluation of Options shall not obligate the Government to exercise said options.

1) 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. For Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) CLINs, cost and price reasonableness will be determined by comparision of the competitively proposed target cost and fee. For Fixed Price Incentive Successive Targets (FPIS) CLINs, cost and price reasonableness will be determined by comparision of the competitively proposed ceiling price. If adequate competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.404 may be required to support the proposed prices, such as cost analysis.

2) Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated cost/price, the cost/price of one or more contract line items or sub-line items (Basic and Option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost/price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN cost/price may be due to (a) an illogical progression of rates or unit costs/prices between program years, (b) unit costs/prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost/price for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government may consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Proposed unit costs/prices will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and/or quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in RFP Attachment 9, Excel Price Model. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3) Cost Realism: The Government will perform cost realism analyses on the proposed CPIF CLINs. Cost realism is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the offeror. Accordingly, proposals will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the proposed technical and managerial approach can successfully accomplish the SOW at the competitively proposed cost and fee for cost type CLINs. Cost Realism may also be used in performance of risk assessments and responsibility determinations.

For cost-type CLINs, the result of cost realism analysis is the Most Probable Cost (MPC). The MPC estimate is the Government estimate of the cost to acquire specified goods and/or services based on each offeror’s proposed approach. The MPC is based upon an analysis of each offeror’s unique proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

The MPC may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. MPC will be used in making a determination of best value. The overall evaluated MPC includes the likely cost to the Government for all cost CLINs (Basic and Option periods).

4) Total Evaluated Price: The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated prices for the the CLINs as outlined below in both the Basic and Option periods. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The sum of the evaluated prices for CLINs 0001, 0003AA, 0003AB, 0003AC, 0004AA, 0004AB, 0007, 1001, 1003AA, 1003AB, 1004AA, 1004AB, 1007, 2001, 2003AA, 2003AB, 2004AA, 2004AB, 2007, 3001AA, 3001AB, 3001AC, 3001AD, 3001AE, and 3001AF will represent the TEP. The evaluated prices for each of the aforementioned CLINs will be calculated as explained in the paragraphs following the three explanatory notes below.

Note 1 – CLINs 0001, 0003AA, 0003AB, and 0003AC: The Government will apply a 9.0% target fee to the proposed target cost (excluding proposed target cost of money) for CLIN 0001, yielding the calculated proposed total target fee dollars. These target fee dollars will be spread between CLINs 0001, 0003AA, 0003AB, and 0003AC as Incentive dollars. Thirty-five percent of these total Incentive dollars will be applied to CLIN 0001 as a Cost Incentive, with the remaining sixty-five percent being utilized as Schedule Incentive dollars. Of these total Schedule Incentive dollars, 20% will be applied to CLIN 0003AA, 30% to CLIN 0003AB, and 50% to CLIN 0003AC.

Note 2 – CLINs 1001, 1003AA, and 1003AB: The Government will apply a 9.0% target fee to the proposed target cost (excluding proposed target cost of money) for CLIN 1001, yielding the calculated proposed total target fee dollars. These target fee dollars will be spread between CLINs 1001, 1003AA, and 1003AB as Incentive dollars. Thirty-five percent of these total Incentive dollars will be applied to CLIN 1001 as a Cost Incentive, with the remaining sixty-five percent being utilized as Schedule Incentive dollars. Of these total Schedule Incentive dollars, 30% will be applied to CLIN 1003AA, and 70% to

CLIN 1003AB.

Note 3 – CLINs 2001, 2003AA, and 2003AB: The Government will apply a 9.0% target fee to the proposed target cost (excluding proposed target cost of money) for CLIN 2001, yielding the calculated proposed total target fee dollars. These target fee dollars will be spread between CLINs 2001, 2003AA, and 2003AB as Incentive dollars. Thirty-five percent of these total Incentive dollars will be applied to CLIN 2001 as a Cost Incentive, with the remaining sixty-five percent being utilized as Schedule Incentive dollars. Of these total Schedule Incentive dollars, 30% will be applied to CLIN 2003AA, and 70% to

CLIN 2003AB.

CLINs 0001, 1001, and 2001: The evaluated price for each CLIN will be calculated as explained in the two steps below:

Step 1 – The Government will multiply a 9.0% target fee times the offeror’s proposed target cost (excluding target cost of money), yielding the calculated proposed total target fee dollars.

Step 2 – The Government will add 35% of the calculated proposed total target fee dollars to the offeror’s proposed target cost and separately proposed target cost of money, yielding the calculated proposed target price. The Government will multiply the calculated proposed target price times the respective quantity, yielding the evaluated CLIN price.

CLINs 0003AA, 0003AB, and 0003AC: The evaluated price for each CLIN will be calculated as explained in the four steps below:

Step 1 – The Government will multiply a 9.0% target fee times the offeror’s proposed target cost (excluding target cost of money) for CLIN 0001, yielding the calculated proposed total target fee dollars.

Step 2 – The Government will multiply the calculated proposed total target fee dollars times 65%, yielding the total Schedule Incentive dollars.

Step 3 – The Government will perform the calculations shown below to arrive at the calculated proposed unit prices.

CLIN 0003AA: total Schedule Incentive dollars multiplied by 20% CLIN 0003AB: total Schedule Incentive dollars multiplied by 30% CLIN 0003AC: total Schedule Incentive dollars multiplied by 50% Step 4 – The Government will multiply the calculated proposed unit price times the respective quantity, yielding the evaluated CLIN price.

CLINs 1003AA and 1003AB: The evaluated price for each CLIN will be calculated as explained in the four steps below:

Step 1 – The Government will multiply a 9.0% target fee times the offeror’s proposed target cost (excluding target cost of money) for CLIN 1001, yielding the calculated proposed total target fee dollars.

Step 2 – The Government will multiply the calculated proposed total target fee dollars times 65%, yielding the total Schedule Incentive dollars.

Step 3 – The Government will perform the calculations shown below to arrive at the calculated proposed unit prices.

CLIN 1003AA: total Schedule Incentive dollars multiplied by 30% CLIN 1003AB: total Schedule Incentive dollars multiplied by 70% Step 4 – The Government will multiply the calculated proposed unit price times the respective quantity, yielding the evaluated CLIN price.

CLINs 2003AA and 2003AB: The evaluated price for each CLIN will be calculated as explained in the four steps below:

Step 1 – The Government will multiply a 9.0% target fee times the offeror’s proposed target cost (excluding target cost of money) for CLIN 2001, yielding the calculated proposed total target fee dollars.

Step 2 – The Government will multiply the calculated proposed total target fee dollars times 65%, yielding the total Schedule Incentive dollars.

Step 3 – The Government will perform the calculations shown below to arrive at the calculated proposed unit prices.

CLIN 2003AA: total Schedule Incentive dollars multiplied by 30% CLIN 2003AB: total Schedule Incentive dollars multiplied by 70% Step 4 – The Government will multiply the calculated proposed unit price times the respective quantity, yielding the evaluated CLIN price.

CLINs 0004AA, 0004AB, 1004AA, 1004AB, 2004AA, and 2004AB: The evaluated price for each CLIN will be calculated as explained in the four steps below:

Step 1 – The Government will multiply a 10% target profit times the offeror’s proposed target cost per unit (excluding target cost of money), yielding the calculated proposed target profit dollars per unit.

Step 2 – The Government will add the calculated proposed target profit dollars per unit to the proposed target cost per unit and proposed target cost of money per unit, yielding the calculated proposed target price per unit.

Step 3 – The Government will multiply a Ceiling Price rate of 105.45% times the calculated proposed target price per unit, yielding the calculated proposed target ceiling price per unit.

Step 4 – The Government will multiply the calculated proposed target ceiling price per unit times the respective quantity, yielding the evaluated CLIN price. (The evaluated CLIN price is the extended calculated proposed target ceiling price).

CLINs 0007, 1007, 2007, 3001AA, 3001AB, 3001AC, 3001AD, 3001AE, and 3001AF: The evaluated price for each CLIN will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price times the respective quantity.

The following CLINs will not be part of the TEP calculuation.

CLINs 0002, 0005, 1002, 1005, 2002 and 2005- Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLINs 0006, 1006 and 2006 - Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

CLINs 3002 and 4001 - To Be Negotiated (TBN)