SCARS_RFP_Attachment_11_Section_M_-_Amendment_1.pdf

FA8621-18-R-0002

SCARS RFP Attachment 11

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

FOR

Simulator Common Architecture Requirements and Standards (SCARS)

Solicitation #FA8621-18-R-0002

29 Jan 2019

Prepared by:

Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulators Program Office

AFLCMC/WNS

2300 D Street, Bldg. 32

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7249

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 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented. 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 most 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 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, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with solicitation requirements 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 and DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DOD Contracts), 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

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 or weakness. 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

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, Subfactor 3 is more important than each of Subfactors 1 and 2. Subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal importance. The Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating are of equal importance.

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 ID/IQ Performance Work Statement (PWS) (RFP Attachment 1A), the Task Order 001 PWS (RFP Attachment 1B), and the System Requirements Document (SRD) (RFP Attachment 2) 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 to meet the security requirements of the ID/IQ PWS para 6.7 and the SRD supported by the SCA technical design details of the hardware and software architecture; and

b. A sound approach to application onboarding and training system integration processes supported by the SCA technical design details of the hardware and software architecture, including applications native to the SCA and post-delivery software maintenance environment provided to 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 ID/IQ 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 ID/IQ 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 strategy, 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 ID/IQ PWS 4.6.9,

6.18 evidenced by;

i. A Logistics Plan

ii. Counterfeit Prevention Plan

iii. Item Unique Identification (IUI) Marking Plan

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 ID/IQ 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; and

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 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 ID/IQ 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 a depot level maintenance strategy or follow-on competitive Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) strategy evidenced by:

i. The Open Systems Management Plan (OSMP);

ii. The narrative of the Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) system model supported by the MBSE System Model. The Government will utilize MagicDraw v18.5 to view submitted models; and

iii. Section J, Attachment 6 and Attachment 7 which supports the OSMP.

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 below, which focus 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. Should the Government determine that a proposal does not meet the letter of one of the descriptions of these color ratings, e.g. should a proposal indicate an exceptional approach but contain only one strength, the Government will rate that proposal with the color that, in the Government’s sole discretion, most correctly captures the proposal’s quality. 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. The only strengths that may be assessed by the Government are outlined below.

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 Volume V, Contract Documentation.

a. In the SCA subfactor:

i. A strength will be assessed to an Offeror that commits to a Risk Management Framework (RMF) implementation of SA-11(1) Developer Security Testing and Evaluation service as defined by NIST.SP.800-53 (Rev. 4), substantiated by the PWS, 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 for use by Simulator platforms and onboarding of those SCARS applications substantiated by the SRD and the technical approach.

b. In the Management Services subfactor:

i. A strength will 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 001.

ii. A strength will 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 will be assessed to an Offeror that 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 an Unacceptable risk rating is considered un-awardable.

2.3.1.6.1 Technical Risk Ratings Matrix

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

2.3.2.2 Past Performance Evaluation Process

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 categories of technical scope detailed in paragraph 2.3.2.4.1 below.

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 adverse 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 preceding the issuance date of this solicitation.

For contracts that began more than five years before the date of solicitation issuance, only the year(s) that were partially or completely performed in those five years will be evaluated as recent. 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 from the Offeror, 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 relevancy assessment ratings matrix and definitions in paragraph 2.3.2.4.3 when assessing relevancy.

2.3.2.4.1 Relevancy Assessment Technical Categories

The following is a list of categories of technical scope the Government will use in determining contract relevance. The categories are listed in descending levels of relevance. The first item under each category is generally more relevant than the second item, and the second item is generally more relevant than the third item. Relevancy will be assessed through a combination of performance demonstrated in each of the following categories of technical scope and the programmatic and logistical scope and magnitude of the effort as described in paragraph 2.3.2.4.2 below.

1) Security Environments TS/SCI or SECRET/SAP or higher

SECRET

DoD Unclassified

2) Simulators DoD Aircrew Simulators DoD Simulators General Simulators

3) Cybersecurity DoD Common Control Provider Joint Special Access Program Implementation Guidance (JSIG) or RMF Network Cybersecurity Experience

4) Enterprise IT Management Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), PaaS, Software as a Service (SaaS), or a combination thereof with 30+ separate geographic locations served Wide Area Network (WAN) with 30+ separate geographic locations served Enterprise Server/Network Administration

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.

The following may be considered when determining relevancy:

• Duration of Effort

• Total Dollar Value of Effort

• Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables

• Number of Geographic Sites Serviced

• Common and Open System Architecture Development for Disparate Systems

• Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs)

2.3.2.4.3 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.

RELEVANT Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

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 categories of technical scope listed above (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) 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. Should the Government determine that contractor performance does not meet the letter of one of the descriptions of the quality ratings, the Government will rate that performance with the color that, in the Government’s sole discretion, most correctly captures the contractor’s performance.

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 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 categories of technical scope identified in paragraph 2.3.2.4.1, 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 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 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 Sites Managed, and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders may be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as 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.

2.3.3 Factor III: Price

2.3.3.1 General

The Government will 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.

2.3.3.2 Professional Employee Compensation Plan

The Government will evaluate the Professional Employee Compensation Plan, including Attachment 16, Professional Employee Compensation Plan Data, in accordance with FAR 52.222-46; however, the Government will not otherwise or generally perform price realism analysis in the course of this source selection.

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.

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.

2.3.3.2 Professional Employee Compensation Plan