DRAFT_Attachment_16_GAP_CIE_Section_M.pdf

ATTACHMENT 16

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS) 215, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, Air Force Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, Source Selection, and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP)

5315.3, Source Selection. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government may award a contract to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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. 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. 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 and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The

SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M1.1. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award one (1) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the

GAP CIE Program, but reserves the right to award no contract depending upon the quality and quantity of the proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds. Concurrent with the initial contract award, the

Government intends to award at least one Delivery Order to fulfill the GAP CIE minimum ordering requirement as identified in Section B, Clause B101 of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

M1.2. REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC PROPOSALS

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to

Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M1.3. 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's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

M1.4. DISCUSSIONS

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 (EN’s), and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Discussions may be held if the Contracting

Officer later determines them to be necessary (see FAR provision 52.215-1 Alternate 1, which is http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ incorporated by reference in Section I). NOTE: The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

M1.4.1. COMPETITIVE RANGE

In accordance with FAR 15.306 (c)(2), if the SSA 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 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.

M1.5. COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE FROM USE OF GFP

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of

Government-furnished property (GFP) by assessing the equivalent value (see FAR 45.201) of those resources as part of the offer.

M1.6. USE OF MITRE CORPORATION PERSONNEL IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS

Personnel from the MITRE Corporation, a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC, see FAR 35.017), will advise the Source Selection Team (SST) in the evaluation of Offerors’ proposals.

MITRE Corporation personnel shall sign a Source Selection Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and a

Conflict of Interest Statement prior to having access to an Offeror’s proposal.

M1.7. USE OF STRATEGIC PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES, INC. (SPR) PERSONNEL IN

THE EVALUATION PROCESS

Personnel from SPR, a program management and cost/price support contractor for USSTRATCOM, will advise the SST in the evaluation of Offerors’ proposals. SPR personnel shall sign a Source Selection

Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and a Conflict of Interest Statement prior to having access to an

Offeror’s proposal.

M2.0. EVALUATION CRITERIA

M2.1. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1 – Software Development Lifecycle Process

Subfactor 2 – Maintenance/Enhancement Delivery Sample Task

Subfactor 3 – Staffing

Subfactor 4 – Transition Plan

Subfactor 5 – Extent of Participation of Small Business Concerns

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

M2.1.1. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The basis of award will be an integrated full trade-off assessment utilizing Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price factors. The Technical and Past Performance factors are equal in importance and each is significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor, however Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the evaluation. Within the Technical factor, there will be five (5) Subfactors. Subfactors 1, 3, and 4 are of equal importance. Subfactor 2 is more important than Subfactors 1, 3, and 4. Subfactor 5 will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. An unacceptable rating for Subfactor 5 will make the

Offeror unawardable.

M2.2. TECHNICAL FACTOR

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each

Technical subfactor.

M2.2.1. TECHNICAL RATING

The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the

Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor, with the exception of Subfactor 5, will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They 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. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

M2.2.2. TECHNICAL RISK RATING

Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The technical subfactors, with the exception of Subfactor 5, will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness(es) identified, the evaluation shall address the Offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Has 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.

file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.000.doc%23p5511 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.000.doc%23p5512

M2.2.3. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING

Technical Subfactor 5 will receive one of the Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings described in

DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table A-1, excerpted below.

M2.3. TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS

M2.3.1. SUBFACTOR 1 – SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LIFECYCLE PROCESS

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to clearly demonstrate the following criteria:

M2.3.1.1. The degree to which the proposal defines and describes an overall program management process to effectively manage the sustainment and maintenance of the GAP CIE program.

M2.3.1.2. The degree to which the proposal defines and describes a mature software baseline maintenance process to sustain the GAP CIE application.

M2.3.1.3. The degree to which the proposal defines and describes the Offeror’s overall software production practices to sustain the GAP CIE application.

M2.3.1.4. The degree to which the proposal describes test processes that validate resolution of software delivery requirements, with minimal impact to the established system baseline or existing capabilities.

M2.3.1.5. The degree to which the proposal defines and describes an Information Assurance (IA) approach to ensure consistent software deliveries compliant with Government IA policies and procedures.

M2.3.2. SUBFACTOR 2 – MAINTENANCE/ENHANCEMENT DELIVERY SAMPLE TASK

The Government will evaluate and rate the proposed approach to satisfy the Maintenance/Enhancement

Sample Task based on:

M2.3.2.1. The degree to which the proposal demonstrates a process to produce detailed requirements from a Discrepancy Report (DR) and provide a viable technical solution to resolve those detailed requirements in the context of GAP CIE Drop 16.

Moderate

Can 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

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.

TABLE A-1. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.000.doc%23p5512

M2.3.2.2. The degree to which the proposal identifies changes to the GAP CIE Drop 16 baseline, and appropriate mapping to software architecture components required to resolve the DRs according to the

Offeror’s proposed detailed requirements.

M2.3.2.3. The degree to which the proposal indicates an understanding of GAP CIE through the test steps necessary to validate successful DR resolution and user experience has been preserved.

M2.3.3. SUBFACTOR 3 – STAFFING

The Government will evaluate and rate the proposed staffing approach based on:

M2.3.3.1. The degree to which the proposal describes leadership and oversight philosophies, tools, techniques, reach back capability , including uninterrupted support for one-deep positions, emergency and contingency support, and the ability to surge in the event additional funding is received for an unplanned delivery orders.

M2.3.3.2. The degree to which the proposal demonstrates their plan to adequately staff the contract with personnel, including on-site support, having appropriate qualifications, certifications, skills, and experience to successfully complete GAP CIE software deliveries.

M2.3.3.3. The degree to which the proposal describes processes to provide Contractor employee training, and security clearances, that are appropriate for assigned responsibilities/areas.

M2.3.3.4. The degree to which the proposal demonstrates the methodology that will be utilized for recruiting, hiring, retaining, and replacing employees (especially those with security clearances) throughout the life of the contract.

M.2.3.4. SUBFACTOR 4 – TRANSITION PLAN

The Government will evaluate and rate the proposed transition plan on the following criteria:

M2.3.4.1. The degree to which the proposal provides a realistic, detailed transition plan, describing the phase-in approach (to include activities and resources) for meeting all transition responsibilities and timeline expectations leading to full performance responsibility with no interrupted support or degradation of service/capabilities for the GAP CIE application.

M2.3.5. SUBFACTOR 5 – EXTENT OF PARTICIPATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS

The Government will evaluate this Subfactor at the overall contract level only and will assess it as acceptable/unacceptable.

M2.3.5.1. The Government will evaluate and rate the Offeror’s Small Business Participation based on:

The rating the Offeror received on their Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Review of

Contractor's Subcontracting Program, DCMA Form 640 or equivalent. Acceptable is defined as anything above an unsatisfactory rating. For Offerors that do not have a DCMA Form 640 review, the evaluation and rating will be based on the most recent rating the Offeror received according to the Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between DCMA and the U.S. Small Business Administration, dated November 12, 2009. The MOU between DCMA and the U.S. Small Business Administration is located at http://guidebook.dcma.mil/37/MemorandumofUnderstanding.pdf . Acceptable is defined as anything other than an unsatisfactory rating according to Attachment 1 to the MOU. Offerors that provided certification IAW Section L4.3.5 indicating that they do not have a DCMA Form 640 or equivalent will be given an acceptable rating for this subfactor.

http://guidebook.dcma.mil/37/MemorandumofUnderstanding.pdf

M.2.4. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

The past performance evaluation is a Government assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s 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.

M.2.4.1. EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all past performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the GAP CIE effort. The

Government will assess performance confidence 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 GAP CIE contract requirements. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate, or may also consider past performance 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 Volume and information obtained from other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), 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.

M2.4.1.1. RECENCY ASSESSMENT

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. The

Government will only consider work performance under an effort existing on or after 31 May 10.

Additionally, the Government will not consider any new contracts awarded, or where performance began, on or after 1 January 2013, due to limited performance history of these efforts.

M2.4.1.2. RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude and complexity of the GAP CIE effort. Each past performance effort that meets the recency requirement will receive one of the performance relevancy assessments, as described in DoD Source

Selection Procedures, Table 4 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings, excerpted below. In addition to assessing relevancy based on the Technical Subfactors, the Government will also consider the following in assessing relevancy: development of software applications supporting Joint Operations Planning (JOP) processes, collaboration, and/or situational awareness; development and delivery of software applications for deployment within the Department of Defense (DoD); integration of 3 rd party tools into existing software baseline; support of multiple overlapping delivery cycles; creation/management of web browser based user interfaces and the back-end components management, and support of Government Furnished

Property (GFP). Only recent performance information rated by the Government as Very Relevant, Relevant or Somewhat Relevant will be considered; recent performance information rated as Not

Relevant will not be considered.

TABLE 4- PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M2.4.1.3. PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

The Government will consider the performance quality of all efforts determined to be recent and relevant.

For each recent and relevant past performance citation reviewed, the Government will consider the performance quality of the work performed. 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 evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstance(s), and the effectiveness of corrective action(s) that have resulted in sustained improvements. The team may review more recent efforts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

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.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and

M2.4.2. 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 described in DoD Source Selection

Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the scope, magnitude and complexity of the GAP CIE effort, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the Government’s confidence of the Offeror’s ability to perform the required effort. 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 an “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” rating for the Past Performance factor. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant performance. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the

Government than an “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

M2.4.3. CONFIDENTIALITY OF SOURCES

Past performance information, including questionnaires and past performance sources are confidential and are not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out the source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to contact individuals concerning the past performance information will be perceived negatively and could impact your performance rating. Any questions regarding source selection information should be addressed directly to the source selection Contracting Officer only and not to any other individuals.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all their subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

M2.5. COST/PRICE EVAULATION PROCEDURES

M2.5.1. COST/PRICE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, in order to determine if it is reasonable, realistic and affordable. The

Government will base its evaluation on the total evaluated cost/price.

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness, realism and affordability of cost and labor provided in the proposal, to include a detailed review of all data used in preparing these estimates. However, no adjectival ratings shall be utilized for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor.

The proposed cost/price of the Base and all Option years for CLINs X004, X005, and X009 will also be used to award the initial GAP CIE delivery order at contract award.

M2.5.2. TOTAL EVALUATED COST/PRICE

The total evaluated cost/price will be calculated as the Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost

(GEMPC) and is the sum of all costs included in the Offeror’s proposed prices for CLIN X001, CLIN

X002, CLIN X004, CLIN X005, and CLIN X009. (GEMPC will be used for evaluation purposes only;

evaluation of any options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options).

The Government will evaluate the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) types as follows:

M2.5.2.1. SOFTWARE DELIVERY vXX (CLIN X001/CPIF) This CLIN will be evaluated based on the GEMPC plus the anticipated proposed target fee of 5% earnable under the cost incentive.

M2.5.2.2. GAP CIE PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE FEE (CLIN X002/FFP) The maximum fee earnable under this CLIN is 6%. This CLIN will be evaluated at the 6% of the proposed value established under CLIN X001.

M2.5.2.3. OPERATIONAL BASELINE DELIVERY/SUPPORT (CLIN X003/CPFF) This CLIN will not be proposed or evaluated during this source selection. The value of this CLIN will be established on individual delivery orders, as required.

M2.5.2.4. OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODCS) AND TRAVEL (CLIN X004/COST) This CLIN will be evaluated based on the GEMPC.

M2.5.2.5. GAP CIE ONSITE LIASON SUPPORT (CLIN X005/FFP) This CLIN will be evaluated at the Offeror’s proposed price.

M2.5.2.6. GAP CIE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE (CLIN X006/FFP) This CLIN will not be proposed or evaluated during this source selection. The value of this CLIN will be established on individual delivery orders, as required.

M2.5.2.7. SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS (CLIN X007/CPFF) This CLIN will not be proposed or evaluated during this source selection. The value of this CLIN will be established on individual delivery orders, as required.

M2.5.2.8. DATA (CLIN 0008/NSP) The data required under this contract shall be considered under the applicable technical CLIN, and not separately priced. This CLIN will not be proposed or evaluated during this source selection.

M2.5.2.9. TRANSITION PLAN (CLIN 0009/FFP) This CLIN will be evaluated at the Offeror’s proposed price.

M2.5.3. GOVERNMENT ESTIMATE OF MOST PROBABLE COST (GEMPC)

The GEMPC will be calculated using adjustments to the proposed cost resulting from the Cost/Price

Realism Assessment (see paragraph 2.5.6). Adjustments may be made based on, but not limited to, the following:

M2.5.3.1. Unrealistically proposed effort: If the Government determines the Offeror missed, misunderstood or incorrectly proposed effort required, the Government may calculate the GEMPC based upon the Government’s estimate of what additional effort the Offeror would require to successfully complete the missing or unrealistically proposed tasks.

M2.5.3.2. Unrealistic methodologies: If the Government determines the methodology, to include skill mixes, applied by the Offeror to a particular Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) cost element is inappropriate, then the Government may apply a suitable alternate methodology when calculating the

GEMPC for that element.

M2.5.3.3. Inconsistencies in the proposal: Where the Government discovers any inconsistency in the cost proposal for a particular cost element, the Government may resolve the inconsistency and adjust the proposed costs for that element when calculating the GEMPC for the element.

M2.5.3.4. Weakness or Risk: If the Government identifies any weaknesses and/or risks that may increase cost, disrupt schedule or degrade performance, the Government may make upward adjustments to the

GEMPC.

M2.5.4. EVALUATION TECHNIQUE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s cost/price proposal, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, to determine if the proposal is reasonable, realistic and affordable. If an Offeror fails to substantiate estimated costs, the Government will consider, under the applicable Technical Risk

Rating, the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the corresponding Technical

Subfactor. The Government will evaluate the proposal for cost/price realism and consistency and determine the most probable cost to the Government. The probable cost 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. The probable cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value.

2.5.5. REASONABLENESS

The proposed costs/prices and labor rates will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a cost to be reasonable it must represent a cost to the Government that a prudent person would pay in conducting competitive business (see FAR 31.201-3). Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR

15.404-1. The Government will evaluate the Basis of Estimates (BOEs) to determine if the proposed hours, material, travel and ODCs are sufficient, yet not overstated, for the scope of effort being proposed.

2.5.6. COST/PRICE REALISM ASSESSMENT (CPRA)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s cost/price proposal for cost realism. The Government CPRA will evaluate the realism of proposed cost/price by assessing the compatibility of proposed cost/price with proposal scope and effort. For the cost to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency. The CPRA includes an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). The CPRA will also consider technical/management risks identified during the evaluation of the proposal and associated costs.

2.5.7. UNREALISTIC/UNBALANCED OFFERS

When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and the Offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical Risk Rating, the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical Subfactor. The Government may determine a proposal is unacceptable if the proposed cost/price, including labor rates, is determined to be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

2.5.8. AFFORDABILITY ASSESSMENT

The Government will consider the affordability of each Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal in arriving at an award decision. Affordability is the ability of the Government to pay the proposed costs of performance within available funding. As such, an otherwise reasonable Cost/Price proposal may not be awarded if it is deemed by the Government not to be affordable. Affordability will be assessed using the total evaluated cost/price described in paragraph 2.4.1 above and may be assessed at the individual task order, CLIN or total contract value level.

2.5.9. INFORMATION OTHER THAN COST AND PRICING DATA

Information other than cost or pricing data will be evaluated for purposes of determining cost realism and the best value.

M3.0. 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.