Section_M_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_09042018.pdf

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

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 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 Subfactor Two: Integration Subfactor Three: Weight and Power Subfactor Four: Sustainment

Factor II. Small Business Participation

Factor III. Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance of Each Factor and Subfactor: The following factors will be evaluated:

Factor I Technical Factor II Small Business Participation Factor III Cost/Price

• Factor I, Subfactor Four: Sustainment and Factor II, Small Business Participation will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

• Among those offerors who are determined to have an acceptable rating in Factor I, Subfactor Four: Sustainment and Factor II, Small Business Participation, tradeoffs may be made between Factor I, Subfactor One: Sensor Performance; Subfactor Two:

Integration Approach; Subfactor Three: Weight and Power; and Factor III, Cost/Price.

• All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

• Within Factor I, Technical:

o Subfactor One: Sensor Performance and Subfactor Two: Integration Approach are the most important and are equally weighted o Subfactor Three: Weight and Power is less important

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. 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 (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.

3. Quality Management System: The offeror shall submit a QMS for acceptance by the Government IAW PWS paragraph 4.12.4. The QMS shall include a Quality Control Plan (QCP) addressing detection of quality program problems and defects, identification of root causes for quality related problems/defects, correction of root causes related to detected problems/defects, and follow-up to ensure quality related problems/defects do not recur.

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 (which includes the Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating)

This subfactor is met when the offeror adequately addresses its ability to meet the sensor-based landing zone assessment threshold/objective requirements as outlined in Section 3.2.4 (Paragraphs 3.2.4.1 - 3.2.4.7) of the System Requirements Document (SRD), as well as the en route obstacle awareness objectives outlined in Section 3.2.5, 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 (Paragraphs 3.2.4.1 - 3.2.4.7), and as well as the en route obstacle awareness objectives outlined in Section 3.2.5.

ii. The performance of the sensor in terms of resolution and observation ranges for the representative targets defined in SRD Section 3.2.4 (Paragraphs 3.2.4.1 - 3.2.4.5) and Section 3.2.5. 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 Sections 3.2.6 (Paragraphs 3.2.6.1 – 3.2.6.2), 3.2.9 (Paragraphs 3.2.9.2 – 3.2.9.5), and

3.9.2 (Paragraphs 3.9.2.12, 3.9.2.14). This includes its ability to maintain and manage collected data to fulfill threshold/objective assessment requirements in SRD Section 3.2.4 (Paragraphs 3.2.4.1 - 3.2.4.5) and Section 3.2.5, and to ensure its imagery is free from artifacts arising from the DVE conditions defined in SRD Section 3.6.1 (Paragraph 3.6.1.1 and Tables 3-4, 3-5). 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 (which includes the Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating)

This subfactor is met when the offeror adequately addresses its ability to perform the services necessary to achieve the required performance thresholds and/or objectives as described in the SRD. The integration approach and process to add the required capabilities while preserving existing systems’ functions as described in SRD Section 3.2.3 will be evaluated. When describing the integration approach, please describe the role of subcontractors/original equipment manufacturers in the integration process. As a minimum, the Government will evaluate:

i. The proposed software integration approach and how it addresses the requirements in the SRD, including Sections 3.2.1 – 3.2.3, 3.2.4 (Paragraphs 3.2.4.1 – 3.2.4.7), 3.2.5,

3.2.7 (Paragraphs 3.2.7.1 – 3.2.7.3), 3.2.8 (Paragraphs 3.2.8.1, 3.2.8.2), 3.2.9 (Paragraphs 3.2.9.1 – 3.2.9.5), 3.2.10, 3.3.1 – 3.3.3, 3.3.4 (including Paragraph 3.3.4.1), 3.3.5 - 3.3.6, 3.3.7 (Paragraphs 3.3.7.1 – 3.3.7.3), 3.7.2 (Paragraphs

3.7.2.2.1 – 3.7.2.2.6, 3.7.2.3, 3.7.2.3.1 – 3.7.2.3.6, 3.7.2.3.7.1 – 3.7.2.3.7.4, 3.7.2.3.8, 3.7.2.3.8.1, 3.7.2.3.8.2), 3.7.3 (Paragraphs 3.7.3.2, 3.7.3.4, 3.7.3.6), and 3.9.2 (Paragraphs 3.9.2.1 – 3.9.2.16). 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 proposed hardware integration approach and how it addresses the requirements for housing, mounting, and connecting the hardware on the HH-60G platform, including SRD Sections 3.2.1 – 3.2.3, 3.3.1 – 3.3.3, 3.3.4 (including Paragraph 3.3.4.1), 3.3.5 - 3.3.6, 3.3.7 (Paragraphs 3.3.7.1 – 3.3.7.3), and 3.8.2. 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, according to requirements in SRD Paragraphs 3.2.6.1.1, 3.2.6.1.2, 3.2.6.2, 3.2.9.3, 3.2.9.4, 3.9.2.12, and 3.9.2.14.

c. Subfactor Three: Weight and Power (which includes the Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating)

This subfactor is met when the offeror adequately addresses its ability to meet the threshold and/or objective weight and power requirements as outlined in SRD Sections 3.8.1 and 3.8.3 –

3.8.7. At a minimum, the following areas shall be evaluated:

i. Weight: The 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 DVES power interface and all power requirements for individual system components. Describe total system current and power draw in accordance with SRD Sections 3.8.5 – 3.8.7 and an initial assessment of electrical loads IAW PWS Paragraph 3.8.8.

d. Subfactor Four: Sustainment

This subfactor will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable approach in accordance with paragraph 4 below. The subfactor will be considered acceptable when:

i. The Sustainment Technical Acceptability Matrix (Attachment 2) is completed in its entirety.

ii. The design approach to meet Reliability and Maintainability requirements as listed in SRD Sections 3.7.1 (Paragraphs 3.7.1.1 – 3.7.1.3) and 3.7.2 (Paragraphs 3.7.2.1,

3.7.2.2.1 – 3.7.2.2.6, 3.7.2.3, 3.7.2.3.1 – 3.7.2.3.6, 3.7.2.3.7.1 – 3.7.2.3.7.4, 3.7.2.3.8,

3.7.2.3.8.1 – 3.7.2.3.8.2, 3.7.2.4, and 3.7.2.5) is met.

iii. The design approach to Maintainer Vehicle Interface (MVI) requirements as listed in SRD Section 3.9.3 (Paragraphs 3.9.3.1 – 3.9.3.7) is met.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical Subfactors One, Two, and Three identified above will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color/adjectival ratings depict how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color/adjectival rating for the Technical factor. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration for performance in excess of either the stated threshold or objective requirements.

Technical Ratings:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

3. Technical Risk Rating: Technical Subfactor One, Two, and Three will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

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, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. A risk is determined to be manageable if the proposed mitigation provides the Source Selection Team reasonable confidence that the mitigated risk will not adversely impact cost, schedule, or performance.

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weaknesses which have 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

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

4. Technical Acceptability Rating: Subfactor Four will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The technical risk associated with the offeror’s proposed technical approach will also be considered as part of the technical acceptability decision. 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 Government’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 acceptable. The Government may independently identify risks not identified by the offeror and assess its impact to the successful performance of the contract. Should the Government determine that any risks identified by either the offeror or the Government poses too great a risk to the program and does not address a suitable mitigation, the Government may consider Subfactor Four technically unacceptable. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether Subfactor Four is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below.

ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, 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 Participation proposal will be evaluated against the FY18 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY 2018 goals are as follows:

Business Size Sub Small Business 22% Small Disadvantaged Business

(SDB)

5%

Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

3%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

5%

Service-Disabled Veteran- Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

3%

Veteran-Owned Small Business

(VOSB)

3%

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:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

E. Volume IV, Cost/Price Proposal Factor

1. Factor IV: Cost/Price The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume IV 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 3, 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 3, 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 3, 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, 1003, 1004 (NSP): Data will be not separately priced.

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

Pictured below are examples of the Excel Cost Models. These examples are provided for demonstration purposes only.

Cost Format C Excerpt

Cost Format A Excerpt

Offeror:

CLIN Contract Type Description Qty U/I Proposed Cost Fixed Fee Amount 0001 CPFF Non Recurring Engineering (NRE) 1 LO -$ 0002 CPFF Protoype Installation Kit 1 EA -$ 0003 CPFF Verification Installation Kit 1 EA -$

Unit Price 0004 FFP Lab/Simulator Kits 6 EA -$

Proposed Cost Fixed Fee 0005 CPFF Protoype Installation Labor 1 LO -$ 0006 CPFF Verification Installation Labor 1 LO -$

Unit Price 0007 FFP Data (NSP) 1 LO NSP NSP 0008 CRNF Travel and Per Diem 1 LO 0009 FFP System Familiarization 1 LO -$

-$ Basic Total

Cost Price Spreadsheet Solicitation FA8552-18-R-0005

Offeror shall enter data in yellow highlighted fields only

Basic

CLIN 0001 Basic (CLIN 0001)

COST/PRICE ELEMENT HOURS/BASE RATE 2018 Total HOURS/BASE RATE 2019 Total DIRECT LABOR Labor Hours Labor Hours

LABOR CATEGORY 1 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$

LABOR CATEGORY 2 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$

LABOR CATEGORY 3 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$

LABOR CATEGORY 4 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$

LABOR CATEGORY 5 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$

LABOR CATEGORY 6 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$

LABOR CATEGORY 7 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$

LABOR CATEGORY 8 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$

LABOR CATEGORY 9 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$

LABOR CATEGORY 10 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$

LABOR CATEGORY 11 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$

LABOR CATEGORY 12 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$

TOTAL DIRECT LABOR 0 -$ 0 -$

ENG OVERHEAD -$ 0.00% -$ -$ 0.00% -$

FLD OVERHEAD -$ 0.00% -$ -$ 0.00% -$

MFG OVERHEAD -$ 0.00% -$ -$ 0.00% -$

TOTAL INDIRECT LABOR EXPENSE -$ -$ -$

Non Recurring Engineering

2019 2020

Cost Format B Excerpt

Cost Format D Excerpt

RATE OR FACTOR TITLE APPLICATION 2019 2020 2021 2022

DIRECT LABOR

LABOR CATEGORY 1

LABOR CATEGORY 2

LABOR CATEGORY 3

LABOR CATEGORY 4

LABOR CATEGORY 5

LABOR CATEGORY 6

LABOR CATEGORY 7

LABOR CATEGORY 8

LABOR CATEGORY 9

LABOR CATEGORY 10

LABOR CATEGORY 11

LABOR CATEGORY 12

SUB-TIER VENDOR NAME

/ LOCATION

TASK(S) SUB-TIER VENDOR WILL

ACCOMPLISH

(Note 1) SUB-TIER VENDOR TYPE (S, IWO or

JV)

SUB-TIER VENDOR QUOTED

COST/PRICE

SUB-TIER VENDOR COST/PRICE

PROPOSED BY OFFEROR

DIFFERENCE

(Note 2)

TABLE 2 - Sub-Tier Vendor Cost/Price Summary Information SUB-TIER VENDOR (I.E. SUBCONTRACTOR(S), INTERDIVISIONAL WORK ORDERS (IWOs) OR