Section_M_Evaluation_Basis_for_Award.docx

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

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. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. 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 technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or 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 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, has acceptable Small Business Participation, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

B. Factors, Subfactors, and Relative Importance:

1. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Technical (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings) Subfactor One: Sensor Performance

Factor II. Past Performance

Factor III. Small Business Participation

Factor IV. Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, technical, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, is significantly more important than cost, which is slightly more important that past performance, which is significantly more important than small business utilization. Within Factor I, subfactor one is equal to subfactor two, and both are significantly more important than subfactor four, which is slightly more important than subfactor three.

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. 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.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Total Compensation Plan: The total compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this total compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

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 (System Requirements Document (SRD), Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), 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 (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings)

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 System Requirements Document (SRD) and Performance Work Statement (PWS) 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 risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and 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.

a. Subfactor One: Sensor Performance Under this sub-factor, the offeror’s ability to meet the sensor-based landing zone assessment threshold/objective requirements as outlined in Section 3.2.4 of the System Requirements Document (SRD) will be evaluated on the bases of technical merit, maturity, and risk. At a minimum, the following areas will be evaluated:

i. The design of the modes and functions of the sensor system in addressing the threshold/objective requirements through the stages of landing zone assessment described in SRD Section 3.2.4.

ii. The performance of the sensor in terms of resolution and observation ranges for the representative targets defined in SRD Section 3.2.4. Sensor performance will be evaluated on the basis of stated capabilities, the technical soundness of the supporting analysis, and the degree to which stated capabilities have been verified through experiments and flight tests in operationally representative environments. The offeror shall explain their method for estimating performance capabilities and state all assumptions and system specifications necessary to verify the analysis.

iii. The ability of sensor processing hardware/firmware/software to ensure that imagery is accurate and timely in accordance with the display and latency requirements in SRD Section 3.2 and 3.9.2. This includes its ability to maintain and manage collected data to fulfill threshold/objective assessment requirements in SRD Section 3.2, and to ensure its imagery is free from artifacts arising from the DVE conditions defined in SRD Section 3.6.1. Evaluation will be based on stated capabilities and the degree to which stated capabilities have been verified through experiments and flight tests in operationally representative environments.

b. Subfactor Two: Integration Approach This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s ability to perform the services to achieve the required performance thresholds and/or objectives as described in the SRD. Describe the approach and process, to include subcontracts with original equipment manufacturers, to add the required capabilities while preserving existing systems functions as described in SRD paragraph 3.2.3. As a minimum, the Government will evaluate:

i. The software integration approach necessary to meet the requirements in the SRD, including paragraphs 3.2.8, 3.2.9, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, and 3.3.4.1. Include a system diagram which describes all new and existing software interfaces used, and software modifications/additions to each block in the system.

ii. The hardware integration approach necessary to meet the requirements for housing, mounting, and connecting the hardware on the HH-60G platform, including SRD paragraph 3.2.3 and section 3.3. Include an integrated block diagram which describes all new and existing hardware interfaces used, highlighting hardware modifications/additions to each block in the system.

iii. The system design approach to spatially and temporally georegister a unified presentation (imagery, symbology, and elevation data) and present it to the pilot, relative to SRD paragraphs specifying georegistered information presentation (SRD paragraphs 3.2.6.2 and 3.2.9.4) and pilot interface requirement (SRD paragraph 3.9.2).

c. Subfactor Three: Weight and Power This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s ability to meet the threshold and/or objective weight and power requirements as outlined in section 3.8 and associated subparagraphs of the System Requirements Document (SRD). At a minimum, the following areas shall be addressed:

i. Weight: The offeror shall describe system components and total system weight in accordance with SRD Section 3.8.1 and an assessment of system weight and balance IAW the Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraph 3.8.7.

ii. Power: The offeror shall describe DVE system power interface and all power requirements for individual system components. Describe total system current and power draw in accordance with appropriate subparagraphs in SRD Section 3.8 and an initial assessment of electrical loads IAW PWS paragraph 3.8.8.

d. Subfactor Four: Sustainment This factor evaluates the offeror's approach to sustainment features of the DVES materiel solution. At a minimum, the following areas shall be addressed:

i. The design approach allowing for software sustainment including the ability and ease of implementing future software enhancements, security updates, and applying bug fixes.

ii. The engineering processes to address material shortages, component obsolescence, and counterfeit parts.

iii. The design approach to meet Reliability and Maintainability requirements as listed in Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 of the SRD.

iv. The design approach to Maintainer Vehicle Interface (MVI) requirements as listed in Section 3.9.3 of the SRD.

2. Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Technical 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 critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform more than 30 percent of the overall effort, based on the sum of the price proposed for each contract line item and/or possesses the business license the prime contractor is relying on to perform the effory of the PWS and SRD. 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 five (5) 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 Present/Past Performance volume. Present/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) Critical Subcontractors: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

d) Key Personnel: For offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

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, 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 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, 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, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced/Repaired, 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.

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 three (3) 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 III of its proposal:

· VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have included performance of three (3) of the following four (4) aspects:

· Integration of a Degraded Visual Environment (DVE) system, including both hardware and software components

· Modification of an HH-60G helicopter

· Logistics and sustainment efforts for the HH-60G helicopter

· Engineering efforts for the HH-60G helicopter

· RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have included performance of three (3) of the following four (4) aspects:

· Integration of a Degraded Visual Environment (DVE) system, including either hardware or software components

· Modification of any helicopter platform

· Logistics and sustainment efforts for any helicopter platform

· Engineering efforts for any helicopter platform

· SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have included performance of two (2) of the following four (4) aspects:

· Modification of any rotary aircraft platform

· Logistics and sustainment efforts for any rotary aircraft platform

· Engineering efforts for any rotary aircraft platform

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

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only include the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to 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 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, Degraded Visual Environment System (DVES). They are as follows:

4.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

· Length of Effort: Example: 60 months

· 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: Examples include: Systems Engineering Management Plan, Integrated Master Plan, Integrated Program Management Report, Integrated Logistics Support Plan, Software Development Plan.

5. 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 performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

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.

6. 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 contracts. That is, on the three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor, 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 contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

E. Volume IV, Small Business Participation Factor

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 Utilization Plan will be evaluated against the FY18 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY 2018 goals are as follows:

2. Small Business Utilization 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:

F. Cost/Price Proposal Factor

1. Factor V: Cost/Price The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume V. Cost/Price Proposal, for reasonableness, balance, and cost realism. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will include an aggregate calculation of FFP CLINs and a Most Probable Cost (MPC) for Cost CLINs, 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 Subcontractor’s) proposed unit costs/prices in RFP Attachment 8, Excel Cost Model, will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and TEP calculation in accordance with Paragraphs A, B, and D below. The offeror’s (Prime and Major Subcontractor’s) proposed costs in RFP Attachment 8, Excel Cost Model, Cost Formats A, B, and C, will be evaluated for cost realism and MPC in accordance with Paragraph C 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.

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 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.

B. Unbalance: 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, because acceptance of the proposal could 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 8, 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.

C. Cost Realism: The Government will perform cost realism analyses on the CPFF CLINs proposed Target Costs. 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 PWS at the competitively proposed cost for cost type CLINs. Cost Realism may also be used in performance of technical risk assessments and responsibility determinations.

For cost-type CLINs, the result of cost realism analysis is the 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).

D. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated price/cost or most probable cost for 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 0001,0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0006, 0009, 1001, 2001, and 3001 will represent the TEP. The evaluated prices for each of the aforementioned CLINs will be calculated as explained in the following paragraphs.

i. CLIN 0001, 0002, 0003, 0005, and 0006 (CPFF): The Government will multiply the proposed target fee times the offeror’s most probable target cost (excluding most probable target cost of money), yielding the evaluated total target fee dollars. The Government will add the evaluated total target fee dollars to the offeror’s most probable target cost and most probable target cost of money, yielding the evaluated target price. The Government will multiply the evaluated target price times the respective quantity, yielding the evaluated CLIN price.

ii. CLIN 0004, 0008, 1001, 2001, 3001: (FFP): The evaluated CLIN price will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price times the respective quantity.

iii. CLIN 0008 (CRNF): Travel will not be included in the TEP calculation.

iv. CLIN 0007, 1002, 2002, 3002 (NSP): Data will be not separately priced.

v. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Pictured below is an example of the Excel Cost Model. This example is provided for demonstration purposes only.

Cost Format A Excerpt

Cost Format B Excerpt

Cost Format C Excerpt image4.emf image1.emf image2.emf image3.emf