DLE_IDIQ_-_Section_M_4-25-2017.docx

Section M

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

DATA LINK ENTERPRISE (DLE)

INDEFINITE DELIVERY/ INDEFINITE QUANTITY (ID/IQ)

25 April 2017

Prepared By:

CDL Program Office

AFLCMC/HNAG

5 Eglin Street Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-2100

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

Section M

Section M ii

UNCLASSIFIED

Table of Contents

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 (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

M-II – SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT

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

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

D. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ONE-TIME USE PROVISIONS:

M001. SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This source selection will be conducted in two parts. The first part is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315 and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3. These regulations are current as of the date of this solicitation and available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

This will result in the award of Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) and the Post Award Conference (PAC) Delivery Order as described below.

Following this source selection decision, the second part will consist of the award of the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration Delivery Order (HCB DO) to one (1) or more DLE ID/IQ awardees which will be conducted as a Fair Opportunity Competition subject to FAR Subpart 16.5.as supplemented.

The Government will select the best overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror(s) who are deemed responsible in accordance with the 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, to represent the best value tradeoff to the Government.

The Government seeks to award to the Offeror(s) who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet, or exceed, the requirements of this solicitation. This may result in an award to higher rated, higher priced Offeror(s), where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical capability and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price Offeror(s) outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against the evaluation criteria 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.

The Government will evaluate proposals against the evaluation criteria identified below. If a proposal fails to meet any SOW requirement, the Government may determine that the Offeror’s proposal is non-compliant and therefore ineligible for award.

The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to conduct discussions with Offerors in an established competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror(s) submitting the proposal determined to represent the proposal most advantageous to the Government, with price and other factors considered.

Offeror(s) are advised that Government sponsored support contractors may be used during the evaluation and throughout the administration of any resulting contract. These individuals will be authorized access only to those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. If Government sponsored support contractors are used, they will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and statements of financial interest with the Government.

Prior to award, a determination will be made regarding whether any possible Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) exist with respect to the apparent successful Offeror(s) or whether there is little or no likelihood that such conflict exists. In making this determination, the Contracting Officer (CO) will consider the representation required by Section K of this solicitation. An award will be made if there is no OCI or if any potential OCI can be appropriately avoided or mitigated.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award approximately five (5) to seven (7) contracts for the Data Link Enterprise (DLE) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract. However, the Government reserves the right to make any number of awards, or no award, if considered to be in the Government's best interest to do so. The Government intends to award to each ID/IQ awardee a Delivery Order for a FFP Post Award Conference (PAC). The Government intends to award the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration Delivery Order (HCB DO) to one (1) or more DLE ID/IQ awardees.

1.2 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically 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.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any deficiencies or weaknesses in an Offeror’s proposal. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government.

1.4 Exchanges

The Government reserves the right to conduct exchanges in accordance with FAR 15.306 as supplemented if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary for the award of the ID/IQ contract. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror’s responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

Following the award decision for the ID/IQ contract and the PAC, the Government may engage in Fair Opportunity exchanges with some, none or all ID/IQ awardees for purposes of award of the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration DO. The determination by the Contracting Officer to enter into such exchanges and with whom to enter them will be based on the results of the evaluation for ID/IQ award and the correction potential of the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration proposals in the best interests of the Government.

Exchanges with Offerors after receipt of a proposal does not constitute a rejection or counteroffer by the Government.

1.5 Award Without Discussions/Exchanges

The Government may evaluate proposals and reserves the right to award contract(s) without discussions and make the fair opportunity decision without further exchanges with Offeror(s). Therefore, the Offeror‘s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and cost or price standpoint.

M002. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Their Relative Order of Importance The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. For Factor 1: Technical, the evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s proposal(s) for both the DLE ID/IQ contract and the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration (HCB DO). For Factor 2: Past Performance, the evaluation will be based on Past Performance Information submitted by the Offeror(s) and from Government research. For Factor 3: Cost/Price, the evaluation will be limited to the cost/price proposal for the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration (HCB DO), the PAC DO at the Government assigned value of $5,000, and the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Sample Problem. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) proposing the most advantageous proposal to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1 – System Architecture and Design Subfactor 2 – Systems Engineering and Program Management Subfactor 3 – Small Business Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical and Past Performance are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 being more important than Factor 2. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3; however, Cost/Price will contribute to the selection decision. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

For purposes of evaluation for the ID/IQ contract award, the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration DO technical solution will be treated as a sample problem to gauge the technical understanding of the Offerors. The results of the evaluation for award of the DLE ID/IQ contract and PAC, including the relative order of importance of the factors, will serve as the basis for Fair Opportunity evaluation, any Fair Opportunity exchanges, and the award decision for the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration DO(s) under FAR Subpart 16.5 as supplemented.

Proposals will be evaluated for the presence or absence of descriptive material which demonstrates an Offeror’s understanding of all system requirements, the adequacy of the proposed approach, and compliance with the requirements of the solicitation. Narrative information that simply restates the solicitation, thus providing no value, will be considered unacceptable.

The evaluation approach will utilize DoD Source Selection Procedures, Methodology 1, Paragraph 3.1.2.1, providing for separate technical and risk ratings assessed at the subfactor level for Subfactor(s) 1&2. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Subfactor 3 will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

2.1 Factor 1: Technical

Evaluation of technical subfactors 1 and 2 provide an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s technical requirements. Technical subfactors 1 and 2 will receive one (1) of the technical color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A- Technical Rating Method, excerpted below. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the technical requirements in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and solicitation requirements. Definitions of strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies are described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Chapter 5, Definitions and FAR 15.001. An acceptable/unacceptable rating as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method, will be assigned for Subfactor 3.

Table 2A. Technical Rating Method

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

The Government’s assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Government will evaluate technical risk in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B- Technical Risk Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating Method

Within the Technical factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror‘s proposal for the ID/IQ contract and the HCB DO.

Irrespective of approach, the Government will utilize the Master Cross Reference Matrix (MCRM) (Section L Attachment 5) provided by the Offeror to track the Offeror(s) technical proposal(s) to the subfactor(s)/criteria listed in Section M002 EVALUATION FACTORS Paragraph 2.2 Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1 – System Architecture and Design and Paragraph 2.3 Technical Subfactor 2 – Systems Engineering (SE) and Program Management (PM).

2.1.1 General

The Technical factor is comprised of three subfactors. The proposal will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in the following:

· Paragraph 2.2 Technical Subfactor 1 – System Architecture and Design

· Paragraph 2.3 Technical Subfactor 2 – Systems Engineering (SE) and Program Management (PM)

· Paragraph 2.4 Technical Subfactor 3 – Small Business

2.1.2 Format and Specific Content

(This paragraph intentionally left blank)

2.1.3 Technical

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach, technical processes and solution for meeting the Government’s requirements for each technical subfactor for the ID/IQ SOW and the HCB DO SOW. The Government will track the proposal paragraphs to each SOW through use of the Offeror(s) provided MCRM (Section L Attachment 5).

2.2 Technical Subfactor 1 – System Architecture and Design

2.2.1 Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the technical approach that demonstrates understanding and satisfies the requirements of the HCB DO SOW.

2.2.2 Component or Design Risks

The Government will evaluate the ability of the proposed design to meet the HCB DO SOW only, with a focus on, but not limited to:

· Proposed BE-CDL Rev B terminal solution and implementation of the proposed waveform mode(s)

· Antenna pointing design for air to air communication, to include maintaining a link in a dynamic environment

· Ability to execute a flight demonstration of the proposed system

2.2.3 Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed Critical Technology Elements (CTEs) have been demonstrated in a relevant environment for the HCB DO SOW only. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to meet the required TRLs of the system as defined in the “Department of Defense (DoD) Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance,” dated April 2011 for the HCB DO SOW only.

2.2.4 System Architecture and Interface

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed inclusion of industry standard non-proprietary solutions for the HCB DO SOW only.

The Government will evaluate the ability of the technical solution/approach to meet requirements specified below:

· SOW Paragraph 3.3.4 for link availability measured or calculated, given a fixed Threshold value for range and data rate as specified in the HCB DO SOW Paragraph 3.3.5

· SOW Paragraph 3.3.5 for data rates measured or calculated, given a fixed Threshold and Objective range as specified in the HCB DO SOW Paragraph 3.3.5

· SOW Paragraph 3.3.5 for ranges measured or calculated, given a fixed Threshold and Objective data rate as specified in the HCB DO SOW Paragraph 3.3.5

2.3 Technical Subfactor 2 – Systems Engineering (SE) and Program Management (PM)

2.3.1 Overall Technical and Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the following for the HCB DO SOW only:

· Proposed program management organization including dedicated program resources, teaming arrangements and subcontract management approach

· Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) reflects an adequate understanding of the program requirements; demonstrates a sound approach to meeting those requirements; identifies program tasks and major events; identifies appropriate criteria (including technical review entry and exit criteria) to achieve those accomplishments; identifies the critical path; and reflects an integrated systems engineering and program management approach for developing and delivering products The Government will evaluate the proposed cybersecurity risk management approach for the ID/IQ SOW.

2.3.2 Certification and Accreditation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s process for identifying and attaining any required certifications, assessment, and authorization. The Government will evaluate the proposed certification activities identified in the proposal. Certification activities that the Government will evaluate for the ID/IQ SOW only, include:

· Cryptographic Type 1 certification

· Cybersecurity including vulnerability assessments/test, Interim Authority to Test (IATT) and Authority to Operate (ATO)

· Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) certification to verify compliance with the CDL family of specifications to include BE-CDL Rev. B.

2.4 Technical Subfactor 3 – Small Business

The Government will evaluate this subfactor for the ID/IQ SOW only.

2.4.1 Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the extent of participation of Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) concerns in accordance with FAR 52.219-24, and is applicable to and will be evaluated for “other than small business” proposals only.

The Government will evaluate the Small Business Subcontracting Plan for compliance with the requirements identified in FAR 19.704. If the Offeror fails to submit and negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan, the Offeror’s proposal will be ineligible for award.

The Government will evaluate and rate the Offeror’s small business participation in part, based on the rating the Offeror received on the most recent Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Review of Contractor’s Subcontracting Program, DCMA Form 640 or equivalent.

The Offeror must have a DCMA Form 640 rating of acceptable or higher, and its Small Business Subcontracting Plan must be compliant with this solicitation. If no DCMA Form 640 is available, then Offerors will be evaluated on their Small Business Subcontracting Plan only to determine an "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" Rating. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan, to ensure compliance with the FAR and agency supplements. Also, the Government will consider executability of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and the likelihood that it will achieve the goals described in it, and whether the plan's goals fall short of, or meets the goals as identified in Section L. If the proposal does not meet the small business objectives, the Offeror will receive an "Unacceptable" rating which indicates that the proposal does not meet small business objectives.

2.5 Factor 2: Past Performance

2.5.1 Past Performance Volume:

(This paragraph intentionally left blank)

2.5.2 General

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Information (PPI) submitted by each Offeror and major subcontractor and joint venture partners (as defined in Attachment 6 Paragraph 2 (a)).

The Government’s Past Performance Evaluation will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products that meet the contract’s requirements for the ID/IQ SOW and the HCB DO SOW. 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 contractor’s performance will be considered. These are combined to establish one (1) performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. The Government will give a performance confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5- Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method.

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.

There are three aspects to the Past Performance Evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

2.5.3 Recency Assessment

The Government will evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this criteria will not be evaluated.

2.5.4 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the ID/IQ SOW and the HCB DO SOW. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and extent of subcontracting/teaming. For past performance to be considered relevant, it must have been performed by the same division proposing to perform on the HCB DO. Past performance relevancy will be assessed as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4- Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

The Government will use the following list of Past Performance Evaluation Criteria in determining relevancy. Past Performance must be relevant to communication systems. The Government will utilize the Offeror’s MCRM to track the narrative for the following relevant Research Development Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) experience.

Past Performance- Relevant RDT&E Experience:

2.5.5 Quality of Products or Services

The Government will evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c) (2)). The Past Performance Evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c) (3) (ii) and DFARS 215.305(a) (2). Past performance Quality of Products or Services will be assessed as described in the Performance Quality Assessment Table, listed below.

PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT LEVELS

exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

2.5.6 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, each Offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5- Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past 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. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorable than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.5.7 Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation

The Government may gather information from the following potential sources in order to determine how well the Offeror performed:

· Past performance information provided by the Offeror

· Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)

· Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

· Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)

· Defense Contract Management Agency

· Interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, or Fee-Determining Officials

· Customer Questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition

· Any other sources or electronic databases available to the Government

2.5.8 Organizational Structure Change History

(This paragraph intentionally left blank)

2.6 Factor 3: Cost/Price

The Offerors’ Cost/Price Volume(s) will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is reasonable and balanced. For the CPFF & CR CLINs, the Offerors’ Cost/Price Volume(s) will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is realistic.

2.6.1 Price Reasonableness

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 cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. For additional information on determining reasonableness see FAR 31.201-3. The Government’s concern in making a price reasonableness determination focuses primarily on whether the offered prices are higher than warranted. IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) the Government may require submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of a fair and reasonable price.

A price analysis will be conducted IAW FAR 15.404-1 in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price has been proposed. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable, and therefore unawardable, if prices are found to not be fair and reasonable.

2.6.2 Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine if they are unbalanced with respect to prices for separately priced line items despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the Government determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

2.6.3 Cost Realism

A Cost Realism analysis will be performed IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). The Government will perform a Cost Realism analysis on the CPFF CLINs only. A Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC) analysis, as determined by the Cost Realism Assessment (CRA), will be performed in the realism evaluation. The Government evaluation of cost realism will consider the extent to which proposed costs under the CPFF CLINs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements, and determine whether they reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements and whether the proposed labor escalation and indirect factors are realistic.

A significant difference between the Offeror’s proposed Cost and the GEMPC will be considered an indicator that the Offeror does not understand the requirement and will be reflected in the Government’s realism analysis.

The GEMPC for the CPFF CLINs, not the Contractor’s proposed cost, will be used for the purpose of evaluation to determine the best value proposal. The Government will not reduce the Offeror’s proposal below the Offeror’s proposed prices in making its GEMPC adjustment.

2.6.4 Government Furnished Property/Information/Supplies/Services (GFP/I/S/S) The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of GFP. This will be accomplished by assessing the equivalent value (see FAR 45.2) of those resources as part of the offer. Any adjustments made resulting in the use of GFP will be captured in the TEP.

The Government may reject any Offeror’s proposed GFP that is evaluated as unavailable. If Offeror’s proposal relies on GFP beyond Government provided GFP that is unavailable, the proposal may be evaluated as deficient.

2.6.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only, and will be derived by the sum of the following:

2.6.5.1 HCB Delivery Order TEP

The TEP to the Government for the individual Data Link Enterprise (DLE) DO award will be derived by the sum of the following:

a. CPFF CLIN 0005 and CPFF Option CLIN 0018 will be evaluated at GEMPC plus the proposed fixed fee amount.

b. CR Travel CLIN 0009 will be evaluated at the Government established value of $83,400.

c. CR ODC CLIN 0010 will be evaluated at the Government established value of $24,000.

2.6.5.2 ID/IQ TEP

The TEP to the Government for the ID/IQ award will be derived by the sum of the following:

a. The DO TEP above

b. Post Award Conference DO 0001 at the Government assigned value of $5,000

c. FFP Sample Problem will be evaluated at a Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) of the labor hours applied to all proposed fully burden rates for each labor category.

2.6.6 Evaluation of Options

All options under the contract will be evaluated as indicated above; however, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.7 Pre-Award Survey (PAS)

The Contracting Officer may have DCMA conduct a Pre-Award Survey (PAS) of all identified Offerors. The PAS may assess the Offeror’s financial capability, accounting system, and quality assurance program. The results of the PAS would be used in the Contracting Officer’s determination of responsibility, and problems in the PAS could result in a determination that a company is not awardable. If a current PAS (within six (6) months) is available from DCMA it may be used in lieu of conducting another survey.

M0003. 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. 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 exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

image1.png