Section_J_Atch_15 _Section_M _20161115.pdf

SECTION J ATTACHMENT 15, SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section J Attachment 15, Section M - Evlauation Factors For Award: FA8723-16-R-0005

SHARED EARLY WARNING SYSTEM (SEWS) PRIME CONTRACT RE-COMPETE

(SEWS II)

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOLICITATION NO.: FA8723-16-R-0005

AMENDMENT 03

ATTACHMENT 15

15 NOVEMBER 2016

Air Force Materiel Command

Air Force Life Cycle Management Center

Battle Management Directorate

Strategic Warning & Surveillance Systems Division

(AFLCMC/HBQS)

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-I - Solicitation Provisions Incorporated By Reference

NOTICE: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "Solicitation Provisions Incorporated By Reference," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference:

A. Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFAR) (48 CFR Chapter 1) Solicitation

Provisions:

PARAGRAPH TITLE DATE

B. Department Of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)

(48 CFR Chapter 2) Solicitation Provisions:

C. Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Solicitation

M-II – Solicitation Provisions In Full Text

NOTICE: The following provisions are hereby incorporated in full text:

A. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (48 CFR Chapter 1) Solicitation Provisions:

None.

B. Department Of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)

(48 CFR Chapter 2) Solicitation Provisions:

None.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_246.htm

C. Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Solicitation

None.

D. Administrative And One-Time Use Provisions:

None.

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This small business trade-off source selection will be based on the Source Selection

Authority’s (SSA) integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price and will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.3, Department of Defense (DoD)

Source Selection Procedures, dated 1 April 2016, 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 (For assistance, contact the Contracting Officer per FAR 52.252-1). The Government may only award contracts to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW 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. This may result in the Government accepting a proposal other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2.0 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award one (1) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to a single Offeror; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. The Government anticipates awarding the Contract Line Item Numbers

(CLINs) included in the solicitation; however, the Government reserves the right to award some or all of these specific Task Orders/Delivery Orders (TOs/DOs). The Government intends to award the Transition TO as the initial TO.

3.0 REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS

The Government may reject any proposal the Government evaluates to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or unrealistically low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the

Government deems the proposal reflects an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

4.0 CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

Throughout the evaluation, the Government will consider the “correction potential” of any deficiency. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements, and the Government does not considered it correctable, the Government may eliminate the Offeror’s proposal from the competitive range.

5.0 DISCUSSIONS

5.1 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

If discussions are required, following the Government’s initial evaluation, the Government will establish a competitive range. The Government will hold discussions only with those

Offerors remaining in the competitive range. If the Government determines the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number with which the Government can conduct an efficient competition, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit the Government to conduct an efficient competition among the most-highly-rated proposals. If, during the evaluation period, the Government determines it is in the best interest of the Government to do so, the Government may conduct additional competitive range determination(s).

5.2 If the Government conducts discussions with those Offerors in the competitive range, it will be incumbent on the Offeror to ensure all changes to its initial proposal in response to Evaluation Notices (ENs) are completely incorporated into its Final Proposal

Revision (FPR). The Government will use the FPRs in making the source selection decision.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

1.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS SUMMARY

1.1 Factors and Subfactors

The Government will use the following evaluation factors and subfactors to evaluate each proposal. The Government will award to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical o Subfactor 1: Program Management and Integration o Subfactor 2: Systems Engineering (SE) and Sustainment o Subfactor 3: Operations (to include Maintenance and Support)

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

1.2.1 The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Factor 1

(Technical) is more important than Factor 2 (Past Performance), which is more important than Factor 3 (Cost/Price). Within Factor 1 (Technical), all subfactors are of equal importance.

1.2.2 IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

2.0 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

2.1 Technical Factor Overview

The Government will assign Technical Subfactor 1, Program Management and

Integration, Technical Subfactor 2, Systems Engineering and Sustainment, and Technical

Subfactor 3, Operations (to include Maintenance and Support), two (2) separate and distinct ratings: a Technical Rating and a Technical Risk Rating. The Technical Rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution – including the associated resources (hours, skill mix, material, etc.) for meeting the Government’s requirements, while the Technical Risk Rating considers the risk – including risk-handling strategies – associated with the technical approach – including the associated resources (hours, skill mix, material, etc.) in meeting the requirements. The Technical and Technical Risk

Ratings – which will not be combined – have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor. The Government will rate the Technical subfactors individually at the subfactor level; the Government will not assign an overall factor-level rating for either the Technical

Rating or the Technical Risk Rating.

2.2 Technical Rating

The Technical Rating provides an assessment of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach – including the associated resources (hours, skill mix, material, etc.) as documented throughout the proposal – meets the Government’s requirements, the quality of the Offeror’s approach, and the Offeror’s understanding of those requirements. The

Government will assign Technical Subfactor 1, Technical Subfactor 2, and Technical

Subfactor 3 one of the color ratings described in Table 2.1 below. The Government may use the Offeror’s Basis of Estimates (BOEs) to support the Government’s technical evaluation.

Table 2.1 Technical Rating (DoD SS Procedures, Table 2A)

2.3 Technical Risk Rating

The Technical Risk Rating provides an assessment of the potential of an Offeror’s proposed approach to disrupt schedule, increase costs, degrade performance, create a need for increased Government oversight, or increase the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. In assessing technical risk, the Government will identify weaknesses (the Government may identify some weaknesses as significant). The

Government will assign Technical Subfactor 1, Technical Subfactor 2, and Technical

Subfactor 3 one of the Technical Risk ratings described in Table 2.2 below. The

Government will not assign an overall factor-level Technical Risk Rating. The Technical

Risk Ratings consider the flaws associated with the technical approach including the associated resources (hours, skill mix, material, etc.) to meeting the requirement and will take into account demonstrated capability implementing proposed risk-handling plans.

For any risks the Offeror identifies, the Government’s evaluation will consider the proposed mitigation approach and why it is or is not manageable. Offeror silence on risk does not constitute the absence of risk. Should the Government conduct discussions with Offerors in the competitive range, for aspects of an Offeror’s approach the

Government addresses through EN, the Government’s evaluation may consider any proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

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

Purple Good

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable

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

Table 2.2 Technical Risk Ratings (DoD SS Procedures, Table 2B)

2.4 Technical Subfactors There are three (3) technical subfactors.

2.4.1 SUBFACTOR 1: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INTEGRATION.

2.4.1.1 The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed Program

Management Plan demonstrates the Offeror’s Program Management and Integration approach and understanding of the requirements identified in the SEWS II PWSs to effectively and efficiently manage cost, schedule, and performance.

2.4.1.2 The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed Transition Plan demonstrates the Offeror’s approach and understanding of the Transition requirements identified in the SEWS II Transition PWS for assuming full execution responsibility with no interruption to support and no degradation of service/capabilities for the SEW System.

2.4.2 SUBFACTOR 2: SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (SE) AND SUSTAINMENT.

2.4.2.1 SE and Sustainment Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s

SE and Sustainment approach and understanding of the requirements as identified in the

SEWS II PWSs to determine how well the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a suitable, effective, and executable approach to integrating new technology into the SEW System.

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

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

2.4.2.2 SE and Sustainment Scenario. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s

SE and Sustainment Scenario proposal to determine how consistent the Offeror's scenario proposal is with its SE and Sustainment Approach.

2.4.3 SUBFACTOR 3: OPERATIONS (TO INCLUDE MAINTENANCE AND

SUPPORT).

2.4.3.1 Operations Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s

Operations (to include Maintenance and Support) approach and understanding of the requirements identified in the SEWS II PWSs to determine how well the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a suitable, effective, and executable approach to provide timely and accurate missile event information.

2.4.3.1.1 Integrated Logistics Support. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s

Integrated Logistics Support approach and understanding of the requirements identified in the SEWS II PWSs to determine how well the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an efficient and effective approach to integrated logistics support.

2.4.3.2 Operations Scenario. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Operations

(to Include Maintenance and Support) Scenario proposal to determine how consistent the

Offeror's scenario proposal is with its Operations (to include Maintenance and Support)

Approach.

3.0 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

3.1 Past Performance Factor Overview

The Government will conduct an evaluation of the Offeror’s past and present performance. The past and present performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past and present performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant performance record in supplying services and products similar to those required in the solicitation. After evaluating the quality of the Offeror’s recent past and present performance that is relevant to the contract requirements, the Government will assign the

Offeror one Performance Confidence Assessment Rating as shown in Table 3.3.

3.2 Evaluation Process

3.2.1 The Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all past and present performance information to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to SEWS II. The Government will assess performance confidence at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past and present performance.

3.2.2 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.

3.3 Recency Assessment

In conducting the evaluation, the Government will assess the past and present performance information to determine if it is recent. A recent contract/project is defined as ongoing effort/work that has been performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of the SEWS II solicitation up to an award decision and must be one of the following:

A single Government or commercial (non-IDIQ or ordering type) contract; or, A single Government or commercial TO placed under a Single Award or Multiple

Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) (FAR 16.501-1, 16.501-2); or, A single Government or commercial TO placed under a Single Award or Multiple

Award Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) (FAR 8.405-3 or FAR 13.303).

Only the work performed within this window will be considered. Past performance information that fails to meet these conditions will not be evaluated.

3.4 Relevancy Evaluation

3.4.1 The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the supplied services and products under those contracts relate to the requirements of the SEWS II solicitation. In determining relevancy for an individual contract/project, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract/project is being reviewed and evaluated. For the Government to consider recent performance information relevant, it must demonstrate past or present performance in one, some, or all of the following relevancy elements:

Scope:

Past performance with Foreign Military Sales (FMS)

Past performance with Tactical Display Processors (TDPs)

Past performance with planning, integrating, executing, managing, monitoring, fielding, and/or controlling globally distributed Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS)/

Government-Off-The-Shelf (GOTS) systems

Past performance with maintaining and sustaining distributed Information Technology systems while meeting similar Operation Availability system thresholds

Past performance with Cybersecurity

Past performance with Integrated Logistics Support

Magnitude:

Similarities, in terms of dollars and contract type, between given contract/project and the SEWS II Individual TO/DO-level PWSs

Complexity:

Similarities between a given past performance effort and the tasks/functions referenced in the SEWS II PWSs in terms of the unique and technical nature of operations, maintenance, support, and sustainment, world-wide geographic locations supported, service similarity, and aging infrastructure

3.4.2 The Offeror’s past and present performance citations do not need to satisfy all of these relevancy elements on a single effort. The Offeror can cite multiple efforts that demonstrate one or more of the above requirements in each citation. The citations should also include subcontractors, teaming partners, and or joint venture partners that will perform key functions or provide significant resources critical to overall successful performance (e.g., responsible for critical tasks in the proposed approach or have significant workshare). With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance.

3.4.3 The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Past performance information sheets and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish past performance relevancy ratings.

3.4.4 While the relevancy ratings for individual citations will reflect the relevancy against the complete set of elements, the Government’s integrated assessment and final

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will consider the relevancy of the complete set of past performance citations against the complete set of elements.

3.4.5 For each past and present performance citation that meets the recency requirement, the Government will assign one of the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings described in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (DoD SS Procedures, Table 4)

3.4.6 Past and Present Performance Quality Assessment

3.4.6.1 The Government will consider the performance quality – how well the Offeror performed – of recent, relevant past, and present performance efforts. For each recent and relevant past and present performance citation reviewed, the Government will assess the performance quality of the work accomplished, focusing not only on work related to the elements identified in paragraph 3.4 above, but all aspects of performance related to the SEW System may be considered. This assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past and present performance information available, regardless of its source.

3.4.6.2 The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information as data from a recent or relevant contract/projectwhich the Offeror has not had an opportunity to respond to in a formal rating systemthat negatively impacts the Government’s performance confidence accessment. If an Offeror’s performance record indicates performance problems, the

Description

VERY RELEVANT

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

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 magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

team will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The

Government may review more recent efforts or performance evaluations to ensure the

Offeror implemented corrective actions and to evaluate the effectiveness of those actions.

If the Government is unable to gather information from the customer of the past performance effort regarding the quality of performance of the Offeror, then the

Government will not use that reference as part of its evaluation.

3.4.6.3 The Government will use the Performance Quality Ratings in Table 3.2 when assessing recent, relevant past and present performance.

Table 3.2 Quality Levels

Color Rating Description

Blue Exceptional (E)

Contractor performance met (or meets) contractual requirements and exceeded (or exceeds) many contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit.

Contractor accomplished (or is accomplishing) contractual performance with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken were (or are) highly effective.

Purple Very Good (VG)

Contractor performance met (or meets) contractual requirements and exceeded (or exceeds) some contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit.

Contractor accomplished (or is accomplishing) contractual performance with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken were (or are) effective.

Green Satisfactory (S)

Contractor performance met (or meets) contractual requirements. Contractor accomplished (or is accomplishing) contractual performance with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken were

(or are) or appear to be satisfactory.

Yellow Marginal (M)

Contractor performance did (or does) not meet some contractual requirements. Contractor performance contained (or contains) a serious problem for which corrective actions have not yet been identified or were not fully implemented.

Red Unsatisfactory

(U)

Contractor performance did (or does) not meet many contractual requirements and recovery did not occur

(or is not likely to occur) in a timely manner. Contractor performance contained (or contains) one or more serious problem for which corrective actions were (or appear to be) ineffective.

White Not Applicable

(NA)

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

3.4.7 Assigning Ratings

Based on the performance quality assessments of all recent and relevant past and present performance, the Government will assign a single, overall, integrated

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating (see Table 3.3). Although the past and present performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to scope, magnitude, and complexity of the SEWS II effort, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the

Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the SEWS II effort. Offerors without a record of recent and relevant past and present performance or for whom information is so sparse the Government cannot reasonably assign a meaningful confidence assessment rating will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In this case, the Government will assign an “Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)” rating for the Past Performance Factor. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an

“Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” rating. Likewise, a strong record of higher quality past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an

“Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” rating. Additionally, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant or lower-quality record of favorable performance. Finally, a higher quality past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant or lower-quality record of favorable performance.

3.5 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

The Government will assign the Past Performance Factor one of the Performance

Confidence Assessment Ratings described in Table 3.3 Error! Reference source not found.below.

Table 3.3 Performance Confidence Assessments (DoD SS Procedures, Table 5)

Rating Description

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 performance 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.

4.0 FACTOR 3 – COST/PRICE

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 The Government will evaluate the cost/price of each CLIN on the IDIQ contract as described below (reference 4.3) and will use this total evaluated cost/price as a factor in determining the best-value Offeror. The Government will use one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if the costs/prices are fair and reasonable. The Government will also use one or more of the techniques defined in FAR

15.404-1 in order to determine if an Offeror’s proposal is affordable as described below.

The total evaluated cost/price will be the total cost/price of the Government Estimate of

Most Probable Cost (GEMPC), the results of price analyses and Government-provided amounts plus any burdens added by the Offeror. The Government will evaluate the initial proposed costs/prices, as well as any revisions the Offeror may make The Government will not assign a color code rating to the Cost/Price Factor.

4.1.2 The Government will equalize the competitive advantage resulting from an

Offeror’s proposed use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP) by adjusting the offer by applying, for evaluation purposes only, a rental equivalent evaluation factor as specified in FAR 52.245-9.

4.1.3 The Government may use portions of the Offeror’s Cost/Price Volume to assist in the Technical evaluation.

4.2 Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data

The Contracting Officer anticipates adequate price competition; therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required. The Government will evaluate information other than certified cost or pricing data for purposes of determining cost realism and the best value.

4.3 Total Evaluated Cost/Price

4.3.1 The Government will calculate the total evaluated cost/price as the sum of the evaluated cost/price of each CLIN included in the solicitation. The Government will use the total evaluated cost/price for evaluation purposes only. The Government will establish the evaluated cost/price as follows:

Transition (CLINs 0001-0004 – to be awarded as the first TO): The evaluated cost/price will be the sum of the evaluated costs and prices of CLINs 0001-0004.

U.S. Support (CLINs 0005-0008 & 0010, CLINs 1005-1008 & 1010 (future PoP), CLINs 2005-2008 & 2010 (future PoP), CLINs 3005-3008 & 3010 (future PoP), CLINs

4005-4008 & 4010 (future PoP)): The evaluated cost/price will be the sum of all aforementioned CLIN costs and prices, including adjustments reflecting proposed use of GFP IAW paragraph 4.1.2.

C1 FMS (CLINs 0022-0025, CLINs 1022-1025 (future PoP)): The evaluated cost/price will be the sum of all aforementioned C1 CLIN costs and prices, including adjustments reflecting proposed use of GFP IAW paragraph 4.1.2.

C2 FMS (CLINs 0026-0029, CLINs 1026-1029 (future PoP)): The evaluated cost/price will be the sum of all C2 CLIN costs and prices, including all future year CLINs and adjustments reflecting proposed use of GFP IAW paragraph 4.1.2.

C3 FMS (CLINs 0030-0033, CLINs 1030-1033 (future PoP)): The evaluated cost/price will be the sum of all C3 CLIN costs and prices, including all future year CLINs and adjustments reflecting proposed use of GFP IAW paragraph 4.1.2.

C4 FMS (CLINs 0034-0037, CLINs 1034-1037 (future PoP)): The evaluated cost/price will be the sum of all C4 CLIN costs and prices, including all future year CLINs and adjustments reflecting proposed use of GFP IAW paragraph 4.1.2.

C7 FMS (CLINs 0038-0041, CLINs 1038-1041 (future PoP)): The evaluated cost/price will be the sum of all C7 CLIN costs and prices, including all future year CLINs and adjustments reflecting proposed use of GFP IAW paragraph 4.1.2.

E1 FMS (CLINs 0042-0045, CLINs 1042-1045 (future PoP)): The evaluated cost/price will be the sum of all E1 CLIN costs and prices, including all future year CLINs and adjustments reflecting proposed use of GFP IAW paragraph 4.1.2.

P3 FMS (CLINs 0046-0049, CLINs 1046-1049 (future PoP)): The evaluated cost/price will be the sum of all P3 CLIN costs and prices, including all future year CLINs and adjustments reflecting proposed use of GFP IAW paragraph 4.1.2.

P4 FMS (CLINs 0050-0053, CLINs 1050-1053 (future PoP)): The evaluated cost/price will be the sum of all P4 CLIN costs and prices, including all future year CLINs and adjustments reflecting proposed use of GFP IAW paragraph 4.1.2.

4.3.2 The Government will establish the evaluated costs for each CLIN type as follows:

CPIF CLINs: The Government will evaluate each CPIF CLIN based on proposed cost plus upward adjustments to costs to realistic levels based on the results of the

Government’s cost realism Analysis plus the Fee amount calculated from applying the

Offeror’s proposed Fee percentage to the adjusted cost of the CLIN.

CPFF CLINs: The Government will evaluate each CPFF CLIN based on proposed cost plus upward adjustments to costs to realistic levels based on the results of the

Government’s CRA, plus the Fixed Fee amount proposed.

Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs: The Government will evaluate each CR CLIN based on the Government-provided amounts included in the solicitation (ref Section L, paragraph 4.2.7), depending on the specific CLIN.

Time and Material (T&M) CLINs: The Government will evaluate each T&M CLIN based on the Government-provided amounts included in the solicitation (ref Section

L, paragraph 4.2.8.1), depending on the specific CLIN.

4.4 Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC)

4.4.1 The Government will develop, based on the cost realism analysis, a GEMPC for each CPIF and CPFF CLIN. The Government will create the GEMPC using the Offeror’s proposal and the Government’s evaluation of the proposed costs and rates. The GEMPC will include upward adjustments to the proposed costs of CPIF CLINs and CPFF CLINs resulting from the cost realism analysis (FAR 15.404-1(d)). The Government may make adjustments based on the following, but not limited to:

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.

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.

Inconsistencies in the proposal: Where the Government discovers inconsistencies in the cost proposal for a particular cost element; the Government may resolve the inconsistencies and adjust the proposed costs for that element when calculating the

GEMPC for the element.

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

4.4.2 The adjustments the Government may identify during the cost realism analysis are independent of the Technical Risk Rating. This may result in the Government identifying separate, independent assessment results within the technical evaluation.

4.5 Reasonableness

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of all proposed costs/prices in all

CLINs. For a cost/price to be reasonable, in its nature and amount, it must not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business

(see FAR 31.201-3). The Government may determine an offer is unacceptable, and therefore unawardable, if the Government finds costs/prices not to be fair and reasonable.

4.6 Cost Realism Assessment

The Government will evaluate the realism of the proposed costs of all CLINs, to include the proposed T&M labor rates. The Government will evaluate each CPIF CLIN based on proposed cost plus upward adjustments to costs to realistic levels based on the results of the Government’s Cost Realism Assessment (CRA), plus the Target Fee amount calculated from the adjusted cost of the CLIN. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, are reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, reflect a sound approach to satisfying the requirements, are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal, and reflect reasonable labor escalation and indirect factors (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1)). 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. If the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low or unreasonably high compared to the anticipated costs of performance, and the Offeror fails to explain these differences, the Government will consider, under the Technical Risk Rating, the

Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical

Subfactor, which could cause the Government to rate the Offeror’s proposal as technically unacceptable.

4.7 Unbalanced Offers

The Government may determine a proposal is unacceptable if the proposed cost/price 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. If the

Government evaluates an offer as unbalanced and the Offeror fails to explain the rationale, the Government will consider, under the Technical Risk Rating, the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical Subfactor, which could cause the Government to rate the Offeror’s proposal as technically unacceptable.

4.8 Affordability Assessment

The Government will evaluate the affordability of each Offeror’s proposal based on the evaluated costs/prices of all priced CLINs by funding source (i.e., U.S. 3400, FMS Case) compared to the funding available. For this evaluation, the Government will add periods of performance as indicated below by funding source and compare the evaluated prices

(evaluated costs plus associated fees) for the CPIF and CPFF CLINs and the evaluated prices (costs plus applicable “adds” or Government-provided amount as applicable) for the CR CLINs. For the Government to consider a proposal affordable, the sum of the costs/prices must be less than the amounts shown below by TO/funding Source. As such, an otherwise reasonable proposal may not be accepted if the Government considers it unaffordable.

Transition (TO-0001) (CLINs 0001-0004): $.4M

U.S. Support Labor/Travel/Material (TO-0002 Support Plus 4 future PoPs, 5 yrs total all PoPs) (CLINs 0005-0008 & 0010, CLINs 1005-1008 & 1010 (future PoP), CLINs

2005-2008 & 2010 (future PoP), CLINs 3005-3008 & 3010 (future PoP), CLINs

4005-4008 & 4010 (future PoP)): $21.2M

C1 FMS (TO-0003 Plus 1 future PoP, 5 yrs total both PoPs) (CLINs 0022-0025, CLINs 1022-1025 (future PoP)): $2.7M

C2 FMS (TO-0004 Plus 1 future PoP, 5 yrs total both PoPs) (CLINs 0026-0029, CLINs 1026-1029 (future PoP)): $2.9M

C3 FMS (TO-0005 Plus 1 future PoP, 5 yrs total both PoPs) (CLINs 0030-0033, CLINs 1030-1033 (future PoP)): $4.5M

C4 FMS (TO-0006 Plus 1 future PoP, 5 yrs total both PoPs) (CLINs 0034-0037, CLINs 1034-1037 (future PoP)): $2.9M

C7 FMS (TO-0007 Plus 1 future PoP, 5 yrs total both PoPs) (CLINs 0038-0041, CLINs 1038-1041 (future PoP)): $11.1M

E1 FMS (TO-0008 Plus 1 future PoP, 5 yrs total both PoPs) (CLINs 0042-0045, CLINs 1042-1045 (future PoP)): $2.4M

P3 FMS (TO-0009 Plus 1 future PoP, 5 yrs total both PoPs) (CLINs 0046-0049, CLINs 1046-1049 (future PoP)): $2.0M

P4 FMS (TO-0010 Plus 1 future PoP, 5 yrs total both PoPs) (CLINs 0050-0053, CLINs 1050-1053 (future PoP)): $1.9M

M003 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a Pre-Award Survey (PAS) as part of this source selection.

If a PAS is conducted, the Government will include the results in the evaluation to determine each Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M004 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.