SCARS_Draft_Section_M_Master_Version_20181029.pdf

FA8621-18-R-0002

Section J, Attachment 14

XX Oct 2018, Page 1 of 13

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

FOR

Simulator Common Architecture Requirements and Standards (SCARS)

Solicitation #FA8621-18-R-0002

25 Oct 2018

Prepared by:

Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulators Program Office

AFLCMC/WNS

2300 D Street, Bldg. 32 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7249

XX Oct 2018, Page 2 of 13

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures IAW FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300 and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. The Government will perform an integrated assessment of Technical Approach, Technical Risk, Past Performance and Price to make a best value award decision. 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 the requirements 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 performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price 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 Section M.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

The Government will 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 an acceptable organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single-award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government may also choose not to award a contract for the requirement identified in this solicitation based on price and/or other considerations if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

1.2.1 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. A sound Small Business Subcontracting Plan that satisfies FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements, is required to be submitted and approved by the Contracting Officer (CO) before a large business Offeror can be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented. Award cannot be made to an Offeror deemed not responsible by the CO.

1.3 Competitive Range Determination

XX Oct 2018, Page 3 of 13 During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition that are not among the most highly rated proposals at the time of the determination. If the CO 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 CO, with the concurrence of the SSA, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for purposes of efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.4 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors as defined in Section M, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation.

1.5 Discussions

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary and/or in the best interest of the Government. If discussions occur, they will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as Acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.6 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency.

The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

2. Evaluation Factors

2.1 General

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 1: Simulator Common Architecture (SCA) Subfactor 2: SCARS Management Services Subfactor 3: Government Ownership of the Technical Baseline (OTB) Factor II. Past Performance Factor III. Price

XX Oct 2018, Page 4 of 13

2.2 Relative Importance

Among the evaluation factors, Technical, which includes the Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating, is More Important than Past Performance. Past Performance is More Important than Price. Within Factor 1, all subfactors are equally important.

IAW FAR 15.304(e), Technical, which includes the Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating, and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price; however, Price will be a substantial part of the decision.

2.3 Factors/Subfactors

2.3.1 Factor I: Technical

2.3.1.1 General

Each Offeror’s written technical proposal will be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the Offeror meets the requirements of the IDIQ Performance Work Statement (PWS), the Task Order 001 PWS, and the System Requirements Document (SRD) as applicable.

2.3.1.2 Subfactor 1: Simulator Common Architecture (SCA)

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to accomplish the SCA.

Measures of Merit:

This subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates the following:

a. A sound approach, including SCA technical design details of hardware and software architecture, to meet the security requirements of IDIQ PWS para. 6.7 and the SRD.

b. A sound approach to application onboarding and integration processes, including SCA technical design details of hardware and software architecture, applications native to the SCA, and post-delivery software maintenance by the SCARS Affiliates.

2.3.1.3 Subfactor 2: SCARS Management Services

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to accomplish the Management Services requirements of IDIQ PWS paragraph 6.00, including all other subparagraphs referenced below:

Measures of Merit:

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Management Services demonstrates the following:

a. A sound approach for managing SCARS On-Premise Equipment (OPE) integration services IAW IDIQ PWS 4.2.4, 4.3.5, describing the types of testing, proposed frequency which addresses testing, and resolution associated with SCARS affiliate hardware and software (including OPE affiliate hosted application testing and resolution).

b. A sound logistics product support plan, including an approach to maintain the SCA configuration baselines, including the ability to provide maintenance and sustainment planning consistent with the Product Support requirements as described in IDIQ PWS 4.6.9, 6.18.

c. A sound approach to SOC stand up, achieve an Authority-To-Operate (ATO), and operate an interim SOC facility at a site hosted by the Offeror IAW IDIQ PWS 4.2.3, 5 (all sub-para), 6.7, Task Order PWS 3.1, 3.2.

d. A sound approach for transitioning and relocating the SOC services and equipment supported by the staffing plan.

e. Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD): This element is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides a sound approach to meeting the Government’s requirement

XX Oct 2018, Page 5 of 13 of setting aside no less than 15% of the total value of Task Order 001 to qualified small business entities.

2.3.1.4 Subfactor 3: Government Ownership of the Technical Baseline (OTB) This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to accomplish open systems requirements in the IDIQ PWS and SRD while providing the Government ownership of the technical baseline.

Measure of Merit:

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s OTB Services demonstrate the following:

a. A sound Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) that provides the Government with an adequate depot level maintenance strategy. The Open Systems Management Plan (OSMP), the narrative of the Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) system model supported by the MBSE System Model, and the impact of proposed restrictions asserted on Operation, Maintenance, Installation, and Training (OMIT) data will be used to determine the soundness of the Offeror’s approach. The Government will utilize MagicDraw v18.5 to view submitted models.

2.3.1.5 Technical Rating

The technical rating assesses the quality of the Offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical subfactors 1, 2, and 3, identified above, will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Each subfactor will receive a color rating;

subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color 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 the requirements:

2.3.1.5.1 Technical Ratings for Subfactors 1, 2, and 3

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 PWS and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2.3.1.5.2 Strengths

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to assess one or multiple strengths to Offerors’ proposals that exceed the requirements in the SCA, Management Services, and Government Ownership of the Technical Baseline subfactors.

XX Oct 2018, Page 6 of 13 Strengths will be contractually binding upon contract award. In order to address strengths, the Offeror shall adjust the appropriate contractual document(s) with change bars with the contractual commitment in their Technical Volume.

a. In the SCA subfactor:

i. A strength may be assessed to an Offeror that commits to a Risk Management Framework (RMF) implementation of SI-3(10) Malicious Code Analysis service as defined by NIST.SP.800-37, substantiated by the SRD and the technical approach.

ii. A strength may be assessed to an Offeror that commits to an architecture that provides a

Platform as a Service (PaaS) capability that supports SCARS Application development and onboarding substantiated by the SRD and the technical approach.

b. In the Management Services subfactor:

i. A strength may be assessed to an Offeror that commits to stand-up of the Interim SOC facility in 120 days or less after issue of Task Order 1.

ii. A strength may be assessed to an Offeror that commits to setting aside no less than 25% of the total value of each task order awarded under the ID/IQ (that has subcontracting possibilities) to qualified small business entities, including Task Order 001, as substantiated by the SBPCD, the ID/IQ PWS, and the Task Order 001 PWS.

c. In the Ownership of the Technical Baseline subfactor:

i. A strength may be assessed to an Offeror that commits to a MBSE approach that incorporates at least 20 CDRLs delivered through the MBSE system model compliant with S1000D format, substantiated by the CDRLs and the technical approach.

ii. The Government may award a strength to an Offeror who commits to: 1) delivering only

Government Purpose Rights (GPR) or Unlimited Rights; or 2) transferring all Restricted Rights to GPR or Unlimited Rights at the source code level for components of the systems which lead to an open system, substantiated by the technical approach.

2.3.1.6 Technical Risk Rating

In addition to the Technical rating, the Government will assess each Offeror’s proposal for Technical Risk at the subfactor level. 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, 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 it believes the Offeror’s mitigation is or is not manageable. Technical Risk will not roll up to the factor level; each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below. A proposal with a High or an Unacceptable risk rating is considered un-awardable.

2.3.1.6.1 Technical Risk Ratings Matrix

Adjectival Rating Description

XX Oct 2018, Page 7 of 13 Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule 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 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 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.

2.3.2 Factor II: Past Performance

2.3.2.1 General

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in Offeror’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

2.3.2.1.1 Past Performance Ratings Matrix

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, 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.

XX Oct 2018, Page 8 of 13

2.3.2.2 Past Performance Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors, taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in paragraph 2.2.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. If the Government considers past performance information based on interviews or surveys, the Offeror will be notified and have a chance to respond.

The evaluation of the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ past performance WILL NOT include the past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

2.3.2.3 Recency Assessment

The Government will conduct an assessment of the past performance information to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be on-going with at least six (6) months of performance history or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.4 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an assessment of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contract citations relate to the Technical subfactors (reference M, paragraph 2.3.1), including their relative order of importance (reference M, paragraph 2.2). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and critical subcontractor(s). The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. In determining the relevancy of efforts performed under individual past performance citations, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor, or teaming partner. The Past Performance Information Tool outputs and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

XX Oct 2018, Page 9 of 13

2.3.2.4.1 Relevancy Assessment Ratings Matrix

Adjectival Rating Description VERY RELEVANT Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Examples may include the following performed at TS/SCI or Secret/SAP levels:

DoD Aircrew simulator experience Common control provider experience Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) Platform as a Service (PaaS) Software as a Service (SaaS) TS/SCI or Secret/SAP environment experiences

RELEVANT Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Examples may include:DoD simulator experience Cybersecurity RMF experiences Server architecture experience Classified environment experiences

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Examples may include:

Military simulator experiences Network or computing security experiences Thick-client server architecture experiences DoD unclassified environment experiences

NOT RELEVANT Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.2.4.2 Programmatic and Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes 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, number of geographic sites serviced, and common architecture development for disparate systems. 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 may 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 of

SCARS.

The following will be considered when determining relevancy:

• Duration of Time: Up to 10 Years

• Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable;

however, the Offeror’s efforts will be assessed against the Government’s estimate.

• Type of Data Deliverables: Model Based Systems Engineering Technical Report

• Number of Geographic Sites Serviced

• Common and Open System Architecture Development for Disparate Systems

• Experience working with DoD

XX Oct 2018, Page 10 of 13

• Classified environment experience, particularly TS/SCI and SAP levels

• Simulator experience, particularly DoD and Aircrew simulators

• Cybersecurity experience, particularly as a RMF common control provider for networks

• Implementation of Wide Area Networks (WAN) ((tie to geographic sites serviced?))

• Network as a Service (NaaS)

• Experience providing cloud services, particularly Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) and

Platform as a Service (PaaS)

2.3.2.5 Quality Assessment

The Government will assess the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the offeror performed on past contract citations). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services and the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) are of equal weight and will be evaluated holistically for each subfactor. In making the quality assessment, the Government will review the received PPQs and/or CPARs, as well as other relevant CPARs available to the Government. Pursuant to FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the past performance assessment will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the assessment will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements.

Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

2.3.2.5.1 Quality Assessment Ratings Matrix

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

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

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

Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems

XX Oct 2018, Page 11 of 13 encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N)/WHITE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

2.3.2.6 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see table 2.3.2.1.1).

Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall assessment of the Offeror’s performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

Performance that is more recent may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent effort. Likewise, a more relevant record of favorable past performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

2.3.2.7 Ordering Type Contracts Submission

In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery or task order). Therefore, IAW Section L 2.4.2.4, if the contract being submitted 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.

2.3.2.7.1 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, number of disparate sites managed, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

• The Government will 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 will 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 will 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 will add up the total number of disparate sites managed under the series of orders.

• The Government will 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, Number of Disparate Sites Managed, 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

XX Oct 2018, Page 12 of 13 described in Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.4.2. As explained in Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.4.2, 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.

2.3.3 Factor III: Price

2.3.3.1 General

The Government shall evaluate the Price proposal and Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of each proposal. The Price proposal will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, and (3) unbalanced pricing. In the event that the CO determines discussions are to be conducted, the Price proposal and TEP of any proposal determined to be in the competitive range will be evaluated. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.3.3.1.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

2.3.3.1.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR

15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.3.3.1.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing and may determine a proposal to be unawardable should the proposed priced items be materially unbalanced IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, a proposed line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3.3.1.4 Total Evaluated Price

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP (Attachment 3). For CLINs that require a pricing matrix, the Government, prior to issuing the solicitation, has determined most probable scenarios for each CLIN. The summation of the proposed prices for each predetermined selection of cells for each CLIN will represent the TEP for all Offerors. The Government will not disclose these predetermined cells to the Offerors in the solicitation.

The TEP will be utilized to evaluate Offerors and make tradeoffs when necessary, but will not be the ultimate contract price for this acquisition. The TEP will be used for price evaluation purposes only.

Offerors should follow the instructions in the TEP spreadsheet for inputting prices in each tab.

3. Contracts Documentation

3.1 General

The Contracts Documentation will be evaluated to ensure compliance with Section L and all RFP terms and conditions as well as consistency with the entire proposal as submitted.

XX Oct 2018, Page 13 of 13

3.2 Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan

The CO will assess the Offeror’s Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan for compliance with laws, regulations, and Section L requirements. Acceptable plans will successfully avoid or mitigate actual conflicts and significant potential conflicts. Unacceptable plans will make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.3.3 Voluntary Protection Plan The submitted Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted, and Transferred (DART) rates or other comparable rates for the past three (3) calendar years (i.e., calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017) immediately prior to the calendar year in which this solicitation is being issued shall be compared to the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for the NAICS code identified on the face page of this solicitation (https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag_index_alpha.htm). Failure by the applicable Offeror/joint venture partner(s)/subcontractor to submit TCIR/DART or other comparable rates will result in the Offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.