SectionMAluminum.doc

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

RFP FA8534-19-R-0001

ATTACHMENT 9

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD (September 12, 2018) I. Basis for Contract Award A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 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. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable Small Business Participation, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance considered approximately equal to cost/price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the Source Selection Team’s (SST’s) evaluations of the factors and Subfactors described in this provision. 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluations, the “correction potential” of the proposal. The judgement of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If one (1) or more aspects of an offeror’s proposal do not meet the Government’s requirements and the proposal is not considered to be correctable without substantial rewrite, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. 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 Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2. Factors and Subfactors: The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following Factors and Subfactors:

· Factor I: Technical

· Subfactor 1) Pallet Production Approach

· Subfactor 2) Aluminum Extrusion and Friction Stir Welding Capability

· Factor II: Past Performance

· Factor III: Small Business Participation

· Factor IV: Cost/Price

a. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: Within Factor I, Technical, the two (2) Subfactors are of equal importance. Factors I, Technical, and III, 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. Factor II, Past Performance, is approximately equal to Factor IV, Cost/Price. However, Factor IV, Cost/Price, is an important consideration in the best value award decision.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated solicitation requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

2. Cross Reference Matrix:

The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents (SOW), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over 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.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the SOW dated 10 Aug 18 (and any revisions), and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor One: Pallet Production Approach. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation (such as but not limited to charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations) that adequately demonstrates the offeror’s technical approach will meet the SOW paragraph requirements as follows:

i) The offeror's technical proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements and adequate details needed to achieve a successful production program. Proposal includes sufficient identification of the equipment, logistics processes, workforce experience and grades, and supplier management needed to successfully produce the required aluminum pallets. The offeror’s proposal clearly describes how they will adequately increase production capacities from qualification to Low-Rate Production and ultimately into Full-Rate Production, in accordance with SOW paragraph 3.6.1.2.1. The offeror’s proposal clearly describes how they will satisfactorily perform Surge Requirements in the event a surge occurs, in accordance with SOW paragraph 3.6.1.2.2.

Subfactor Two: Manufacturing Capability for Principle Pallet Components. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation (such as but not limited to charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations) that adequately demonstrates the offeror’s technical approach will meet the Technical Data Package (TPD) and Military Detail Specification (MIL-DTL) requirements as follows:

i) The offeror’s approach to satisfactorily meet the Aluminum Extrusion requirements of drawing 201642455 in the quantities and technical tolerances required. Evidence of adequate resources include:

· Specific Extrusion equipment model number(s), description, and performance specifications

· Calculations of extrusion equipment capability, illustrating the necessary production capacity

· Explanations of manpower and floor space resources required to meet the necessary extrusion production capacity

ii) The offeror’s approach to satisfactorily meet the Friction Stir Welding (FSW) requirements of drawing 201642455, and MIL-DTL-27443 paragraphs 3.3.4, 3.10, and 4.5.9.2 in the quantities and technical tolerances required. Evidence of adequate resources include:

· Specific FSW equipment model number(s), description, and performance specifications

· Calculations of FSW equipment capability, illustrating the necessary production capacity

· Explanations of manpower and floor space resources required to meet the necessary FSW production capacity

iii) The offeror’s approach to satisfactorily meet the associated metal machining requirements associated with drawing 201642455 in the quantities and technical tolerances required. Evidence of adequate resources include:

· Specific CNC or milling equipment model number(s), description, and performance specifications

· Capability rationale of machining equipment, illustrating the necessary production capacity

· Explanations of manpower and floor space resources required to meet the necessary CNC production capacity

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

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A joint venture is defined as a contractual agreement joining together two (2) or more parties to undertake a particular business transaction or project and is intended to exist for a limited time period. The individual entities may retain their individuality and operate under a joint venture agreement or the joint venture creates a separate corporation, limited liability company, or membership. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will perform friction stir welding or manufacture of extrusions.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ 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. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past six (6) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance volume. Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). 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.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation 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.

c) Key Personnel: In considering past performance, the Government will not consider “Key Personnel” of the offeror/joint venture member.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, total quantity produced, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

· The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

· The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

· The Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total Quantity produced for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

· The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced, and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total dollar value, length of effort, quantity produced, and type and complexity of data deliverables of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4.1 below.

Recency Assessment: An assessment of the Past Performance Information (PPI) will be made to determine if the effort is recent. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past six (6) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. PPI that does not met this condition will not be evaluated.

4. Relevancy Definitions: 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 recent four (4) submitted efforts. The Government will consider the following relevancy definitions as well as the logistical and programmatic considerations included in the note proceeding the definitions in the overall relevancy assessment for each effort. 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 III of its proposal:

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the below definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified for each effort but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to dollar value, length of effort, quantity produced, and type and complexity of data deliverables. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical 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 will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Next Generation 463L Cargo Pallets. They are as follows:

Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

Duration of Time: 10 Years

· Technical Data Package: Next Generation Cargo Pallet, Drawing 201642455 Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable; however, the offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against the Government’s estimate.

Type of Data Deliverables: Inspection Reports, Delivery Reports, Status Reports, etc.

4.1 Friction Stir Welding Relevancy Definitions.

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Very Relevant efforts must have included all of the following:

Friction stir weldments of 96” or longer, multi-void, thin wall (0.125 in or less) 6000 series aluminum extrusions in quantities of 500 per month or greater.

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts must have included the following:

Friction stir weldments of 6000 series aluminum extrusions in quantities of 500 or more per month.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat Relevant efforts must have included all of the following:

Friction stir weldments of aluminum in quantities of 250 or more per month.

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

4.2 Production of Aluminum Extrusions Relevancy Definitions.

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Very Relevant efforts must have included the following:

Production of minimum 96” length by 21” profile width, multi-void, thin wall (0.125 in or less) aluminum extrusions in quantities of 500 per month or greater.

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts must have included the following:

Production of minimum 10” profile width, multi-void, thin wall (0.125 in or less) aluminum extrusions in quantities of 100 per month or greater.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat Relevant efforts must have included the following:

Production of aluminum extrusions.

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

5. Performance Quality Assessment: For each recent and relevant past performance effort reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed based on the answers provided in Section L Attachment E, Past Performance Questionnaire. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all PPI available as noted in paragraph D.2.a, Other Sources of Information, regardless of its source. The performance quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as PPI that supports 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 appropriateness and/or effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised) 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 and critical subcontractors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse PPI if the offeror/joint venture member or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent efforts 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 utilize the quality ratings as defined below when assessing the quality of performance under recent and relevant efforts:

Performance Quality Rating Table

PERFORMANCE QUALITY

6. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The confidence assessment rating may be impacted if all three of the areas of relevancy/the three sets of relevancy definitions aren’t addressed within the overall past performance volume submittal. This can be accomplished all in one contract effort (potentially), or via teaming with one company demonstrating each area (i.e., three companies teaming together, with each responsible for one aspect). The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival 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.

Neutral Confidence 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation 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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

7. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractor’s, 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 the submitted efforts. That is, on the four (4) respective efforts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the efforts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these efforts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

8. Small Business Participation Factor

8.1. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation proposal addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and,

iii) The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors 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.

The associated goals in paragraph iii above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal will be evaluated against the FY18 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY 2018 goals are as follows:

8.2. Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participation factor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

9. Price Proposal Factor.

Cost/Price Proposal Factor: The offeror’s proposed unit prices in RFP Attachment 4 (Excel Price model) will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs A and B below. A total evaluated price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph C below.

A. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

B. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the proposed cost/price of one or more contract line items (including the Basic and Option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of 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 will 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 (to include individual quantity ranges). Costs/prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in RFP Attachment 4. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. Total Evaluated Price: The sum of the evaluated prices for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003AL, 0003AM, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001, 6001, 7001, 8001 and 9001 will represent the TEP. The evaluated price for each of the aforementioned CLINs will be calculated as follows:

i. CLINs 0001, and 0002: The evaluated price for each CLIN will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price times the respective quantity.

ii. CLINS 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001, 6001, 7001, 8001 and 9001: The evaluated price for each CLIN will be calculated by adding together the evaluated price for each quantity range within the CLIN. The evaluated price for each quantity range will be calculated as explained in the three steps below.

1. The proposed dollars per pound for aluminum will be multiplied times the Government calculated 284.50 pounds of aluminum per cargo pallet, yielding the calculated/proposed aluminum dollars per unit. The calculated/proposed aluminum dollars are also referred to as the “Price Subject to Adjustment” (PSA).

2. The PSA will be added to the proposed “Price Not Subject to Adjustment” (PNSA). The sum will be rounded to whole dollars, yielding the calculated/proposed unit price.

3. The calculated/proposed unit price will be multiplied times the evaluated quantity for the corresponding quantity range, yielding the evaluated price for that quantity range.

iii. CLINs 0003AA, 0003AB, 0003AC, 0003AD, 0003AE, 0003AF, 0003AG, 0003AH, 0003AJ, and 0003AK are Not Separately Priced (NSP), and shall not be proposed to. They will not be part of the TEP calculation.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are advised that evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

RFP Attachment 4, tab 2, contains an example of a TEP Calculation. The example is provided for demonstration purposes only and is not inclusive of all contract periods. The Government estimated dollars, quantities, and/or prices contained within are arbitrary numbers. The example is in no way reflective of the actual/total requirements as defined in the RFP. It is provided only as a means of identifying how the various types of calculations will be performed.

�Don’t need this as this will be part of the programmatic determination of relevancy made for the above definitions.

�If the RFP will be released after the FY19 goals are available, include the FY18 goals. Otherwise, this needs to be updated to the FY19 goals.

�ACE does not coordinate on cost/price. Please ensure you receive coordination from pricing and JA.