draft J-8 Section M Evaluation Criteria 20240305.pdf

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria Page 1 of 12

Base Infrastructure Modernization (BIM)

FA8726-23-R-B001

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria (5 March 2024)

1. General Information

1.1. Basis for Award

This acquisition will utilize the streamlined process described by FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii), where evaluation will not include price or cost and award will be made to each and all qualifying offerors.

As used in this solicitation, a “qualifying offeror” means an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe the offeror would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. For this acquisition a technically acceptable proposal means that all factors and subfactors are rated as “Acceptable” and conforms to the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will comply with FAR 9.105-2(a)(2) and the procedures of FAR Subpart 19.6 in the case of a small business that lacks elements of responsibility.

Evaluation will be in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, as supplemented by the DFARS, DAFFARS, DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures, and the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures (August 2022). By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in Section L, Instructions to Offerors, the Offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors, and makes no exceptions or assumptions to the terms and conditions.

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

This is an acquisition under NAICS code 517111, Wired Telecommunications Carriers.

Awards of IDIQs will be made according to the Experience Tier that the Offeror selects as part of their Prior Experience Scorecard. Selection of an Experience Tier means the Offeror, if awarded an IDIQ, will be eligible to compete for Task Orders according to their Experience Tier as identified in Section L, Paragraph 2.2, Table 2.

This acquisition will utilize a Small Business Reserve, wherein the Government will reserve a minimum of 3 awards for each of the following categories: HUBZone, Women-Owned Small Businesses, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, and Small Businesses not in a socioeconomic program, and a minimum of 5 awards to 8(a) concerns. In addition to otherwise meeting the requirements of a “qualifying offeror”, awardees under the Small Business Reserve must qualify as a Small Business (and for the specific Concern, as applicable) under the NAICS 517111.

DRAFT DOCUMENT

POSTED TO SAM.GOV 11 MARCH 2024

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria Page 2 of 12

1.2. Rejection of Unreasonable Proposals

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions when compared to Government requirements, 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. Proposal 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 and subfactors to be eligible for the IDIQ. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the proposal may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for the IDIQ.

1.4. Evaluation Factors for Award

Offerors will be evaluated according to the contents of Volumes 2 through 4. If one or more Factors or Subfactors receive a rating of “unacceptable “according to the criteria in this section, the Offeror will not be eligible for award.

Table 1: Proposal Organization

Volume Element ID Evaluation Page Limit

Volume 1 Information - Contracting Information Attachment Volume 2 Factor 1 Prior Experience Attachment

Factor 2 Facility Clearance Attachment

Volume 3 Factor 3 Technical Proposal (see below)

Subfactor 1 Global Management Support Plan 20 Subfactor 2 Task Order Support Plan 35

Volume 4 Factor 4 Small Business Participation Attachment

1.5. Relative Importance

All factors and subfactors are of equal importance and all must be rated as ‘Acceptable’ to qualify for award.

1.6. Evaluation Methodology

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the criteria established and identified in Section L and M.

2. Evaluation Process The Government will evaluate each Factor and Subfactor for each Offeror.

2.1. Volume 1: Information – Contract Information

The Government will verify the information provided. This volume will not be evaluated.

2.2. Volume 2: Factor 1 – Prior Experience

This factor will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. This factor assesses whether the Offeror has experience performing similar efforts, as submitted using the Prior

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria Page 3 of 12

Experience Scorecard (PES) and the associated References (Attachment J-3).

The Government will review the Offeror’s submitted PES to ensure it has been completed.

References that are incomplete or have Form Validation errors will cause the Reference to not be scored nor considered.

If the Offeror proposes a PES which features a Total Score of 17 or below or features a Task Range Score of less than 4, the Offeror’s prior experience will not be validated by the Government and the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unacceptable”.

The Government will validate each of the References. If a Reference cannot be validated using the contact information provided or if validation indicates that any qualifying aspects were not met for a Task, then the Reference and/or Task will not be included in the computation of the Total Score nor Task Range score. This may result in the Government-validated Total Score and/or Task Range score being lowered than the Total Score and/or Task Range score as included in the Offeror’s proposal.

To receive a rating of “Acceptable”, the Government-validated Total Score identified on the PES must be 18 or higher and the Government-validated Task Range Score must be 4.

If the Government-validated PES has a Total Score of 17 or below, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unacceptable”. Additionally, the Offeror’s experience, in sum, must include all 4 Tasks. If a Government-validated PES has a Total Score that meets the minimum but the Task Range Score is less than 4, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unacceptable”.

The method for scoring the PES and Task Range for Offeror’s proposals is detailed below.

2.2.1. Types of Contracts Considered

References must have been contracts (may have been for Government or non-Government customers), to include Call Orders, Task Orders, Purchase Orders; experiences presented that merely reference an agreement or overarching vehicle will not be considered.

2.2.2. Recency of Experience

References must have performed any time between 1 October 2018 and 31 December 2023.

Example: A Reference where the Offeror was performing between 30 March 2018 and 1 October 2018 would be considered, as the one of the days of performance (1 October) falls within the range of recency, whereas if performance ended on 30 September 2018, it would not be considered.

Example: A Reference where the Offeror started performance on 31 December 2023 and will run through 31 December 2024 would be considered, as one of the days of performance (31 December 2023) falls within the range of recency, whereas if performance began on 1 January 2024 the reference would not be considered.

2.2.3. Experience of the Offeror

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria Page 4 of 12

References must be for work the Offeror was responsible for either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor. The experience of other subcontractors on the effort, even if all subcontractors fell under the management of the same prime contractor (if that prime contractor was not the Offeror), will not be considered a Reference attributable to the Offeror.

Example: A Reference where the Offeror was a prime contractor on an effort and had subcontractors under the Offeror’s direction (whether those subcontractors were small businesses or other-than-small businesses) performing Tasks 1, 2, and 3, will be considered as the Offeror’s experience covering Tasks 1, 2, and 3.

Example: A Reference where the Offeror performed Task 1 as a subcontractor, and Tasks 2, 3, and 4 were accomplished by other subcontractors not under the direction of the Offeror, the experience will only be considered as an experience for Task 1.

2.2.4. Experience of Partners and Prospective Subcontractors

Experience by the Offeror, Attributable Partner, and Attributable Subcontractor (as defined in Section L, Paragraph 2.2) will be counted the same for this evaluation. Experience may be drawn in any mix from the Offeror, Attributable Partners, and Attributable Subcontractors in the Offeror’s proposal.

Attributable Partners: Members or Partners of Joint Ventures, to include Mentor- Protégé arrangements: References of experience from each of the members or partners of the Joint Venture will be considered in their sum as Attributable Partners, as will any experience of the Joint Venture (to include Mentor-Protégé arrangements) itself. The Offeror must include the appropriate supporting documentation in their proposal to demonstrate such an agreement or arrangement, to include which Prior Experience tasks will be utilizing each of those Attributable Partners. This includes work performed by the Attributable Partner or performed by a subcontractor under the Attributable Partner’s direction for the reference in a prime contractor-subcontractor relationship.

Example: A Joint Venture where Member 1 (or the Mentor) providing two References that cover Tasks 1 and 2, and Member 2 (or the Protégé) providing two additional References that cover Tasks 3 and 4, will be considered as the Offeror providing four References across Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Attributable Subcontractors: Prospective subcontractors for Offerors with other arrangements with those subcontractors: References of experience from each of the prospective subcontractors will be considered as performance by an Attributable Subcontractor so long as the Offeror’s proposal includes supporting documentation demonstrating an agreement between the Offeror and each prospective contractor, signed by both parties, to indicate a commitment of both parties to support BIM should an award be made. This documentation can include Small Business Teaming Arrangements, agreements to subcontract, or other agreements and must indicate which Prior Experience tasks will be utilizing each of those Attributable Subcontractors. This includes work performed by the Attributable Subcontractor or performed by a subcontractor under the Attributable Subcontractor’s direction for the reference in a prime contractor-

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria Page 5 of 12 subcontractor relationship.

Example: An Offeror, providing a Reference performed by an Attributable Subcontractor that cover Tasks 1, 2, and 3, and three references performed by an Attributable Subcontractor that cover tasks 2, 3, and 4 will be considered as the Offeror providing four experiences that cover Tasks 1, 2, 3, and 4.

2.2.5. Reference Quality

References will not be evaluated based on the quality of past performance, but References that resulted in a termination for cause or default will not be considered.

2.2.6. Definition of Experience Tasks

To determine whether the Offeror’s experience will be considered, the following definitions will be used in validating the experience.

Task 1 – Network Health Monitoring: The Offeror, Attributable Partner, or Attributable Subcontractor performed network health monitoring, such as proactively identifying problem points, identifying network inefficiencies, and/or identifying potential improvements within the network and recommending solutions to resolve or capture those, to meet and sustain identified performance thresholds, for a network of the number of active users associated with the Experience Tier selected by the Offeror.

Experience must meet each qualifying aspect: The Offeror, Attributable Partner, or Attributable Subcontractor must have been performing network health monitoring AND the network must have been of the number of active users associated with the Experience Tier selected by the Offeror.

Task 2 – Modernization: The Offeror, Attributable Partner, or Attributable Subcontractor performed infrastructure modernization or enhancement, such as fiber optic cabling installation and/or replacement, and/or installation of network hardware, where the performance involved infrastructure spanning at least 5 different (physically separated) facilities.

Experience must meet each qualifying aspect: The Offeror, Attributable Partner, or Attributable Subcontractor must have been performing infrastructure modernization or enhancement AND the performance involved infrastructure spanning at least 5 different (physically separated) facilities.

Task 3 – Network Design: The Offeror, Attributable Partner, or Attributable Subcontractor performed network design and architecture development for a network that spans at least 5 different (physically separated) facilities and accommodates the number of active users associated with the Experience Tier selected by the Offeror.

Experience must meet each qualifying aspect: The Offeror, Attributable Partner, or Attributable Subcontractor must have been performing network design and architecture development that spans at least 5 different (physically separated) facilities AND the

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria Page 6 of 12 network must accommodate the number of active users associated with the Experience Tier selected by the Offeror.

Task 4 – Network Operation: The Offeror, Attributable Partner, or Attributable Subcontractor operated a network for a minimum of 12 continuous months as of the proposal due date in Block 9 of the Standard Form 33 for this solicitation that supports the number of active users associated with the Experience Tier selected by the Offeror.

Experience must meet each qualifying aspect: The Offeror, Attributable Partner, or Attributable Subcontractor must have been operating a network, AND must have been doing so for a minimum of 12 continuous months as of the date in Block 9 of the Standard Form 33 for this solicitation, AND that network must support the number of active users associated with the Experience Tier selected by the Offeror.

2.2.7. Experience Validation

The Government will validate each Reference to ensure they meet the criteria of paragraphs 2.2.1 through 2.2.6. If validation finds that a Reference does not meet the criteria or the Government cannot validate a Reference submitted, it will not be considered for the Government-validated Total Score or Task Range Score.

2.2.8. PES Scoring Summary

The table below summarizes examples regarding whether the Offeror’s prior experience will be considered to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 2: Factor 1 – Prior Experience Rating Examples

Description

Offeror’s Proposal \

Total Score Task Range Score

Explanation

Does Not Meet 17 4 Offeror’s proposed PES has a Total Score below 18.

Does Not Meet 18 3 Offeror’s proposed PES has a Task Range Score below 4.

Description

Government Validation

Explanation Total Score Task Range

Score Does Not Meet 17 4 Government-validated Total Score is below 18.

Does Not Meet 18 3 Government-validated Task Score Range is below 4.

Meets 18 4 Government-validated Total Score is 18 or higher and the

Government-validated Task Score Range is 4.

Table 3: Factor 1 – Prior Experience Rating Ratings

Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

2.3. Volume 2: Factor 2 – Facility Clearance

This factor will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. This factor assesses whether the Offeror currently holds a sufficient facility clearance to process classified information as applicable to this acquisition. The Government will validate that the CAGE code

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria Page 7 of 12 provided on their Proposal Cover Sheet and on the BIM IDIQ DD 254 match. If the CAGE codes are not the same, then the Offeror will not have met the requirements of the solicitation.

Otherwise, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s facility clearance as of the date of proposal submission in National Industrial Security System (NISS) using the CAGE code provided in their submitted BIM IDIQ DD 254.

If the Offeror holds a current facility security clearance of at least “Secret” as validated by NISS, then it will have met the requirements of the solicitation. Otherwise, it will not have met the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 4: Factor 2 – Facility Clearance Ratings Rating Definition

2.4. Volume 3: Factor 3 – Technical Proposals

This factor will be rating on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. If one or both subfactors receive a rating of “Unacceptable”, the entire factor will receive rating of “Unacceptable”.

Used throughout this factor, an “explanation” means a response which demonstrates a working knowledge of the topic, and a “plan” (whether used generally or for a specifically named plan) means a formal strategy or approach to address the topic.

2.4.1. Factor 3: Subfactor 1 – Global Management Support Plan This subfactor will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements for implementing a Global Management Support Plan (GMSP) that covers the scope and scale of the BIM IDIQ Performance Work Statement.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s GMSP for viability, comprehension, clarity and completeness to determine whether the plan is acceptable.

Viability considers the likelihood of the Offeror’s GMSP and strategies therein of being successful. Comprehension considers whether the Offeror demonstrates, through their explanations, that their understanding of processes represents effective working knowledge of the related topics. Clarity considers whether the plan clearly addresses all required aspects.

Completeness considers whether the plan addresses all the following:

a. A Capability Statement and Operational Plan to demonstrate how the Offeror will handle the breadth and scale of transformational tasks across multiple locations with minimal risks to the Government.

b. For teaming arrangements, a breakout of the responsibilities of the team members.

c. A Staff Management Plan which addresses:

1. The approach for personnel recruitment, training, and retaining qualified personnel.

2. The approach for obtaining, maintaining, and managing security clearances of

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria Page 8 of 12 personnel.

3. The approach to provide personnel to support multiple geographical CONUS and

OCONUS locations, to include how travel and/or telework technology would be utilized to maximize the use of centralized Network Operations Centers (NOCs).

d. A Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) plan which addresses:

1. Evaluation, full examination, or implementation of its full spectrum supply chain.

2. Identification, assessment, planning, and mitigation of actual and potential threats vulnerabilities, and disruptions to the supply chain.

3. Application of supply chain protection and counterfeit protection.

4. Identification, assessment, planning, and mitigation of Cybersecurity SCRM (C-

SCRM).

5. How the Offeror will ensure that the inventory management system is 98% accurate for Unclassified and 100% for Classified.

If the Offeror’s GMSP is viable, demonstrates an effective comprehension of the related topics, is clear, and addresses all of the details of the plan identified in Section M, Section 2.4.1, then it will have met the requirements of the solicitation. If it is missing any of those aspects, it will not have met the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 5: Factor 3, Subfactor 1 – Global Management Support Plan Ratings Rating Definition

As stated in Section L, if required to provide a Disclosure Statement (in accordance with FAR 52.230-1), the Disclosure Statement will not be included in the evaluation to determine whether Factor 3, Subfactor 1 is rated “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. However, in the case that an Offeror is found to be an apparent awardee, the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement will be reviewed to ensure that it complies with the requirements of FAR 52.230-1 as a matter of determining whether the Offeror is responsible.

2.4.2. Factor 3: Subfactor 2 – Task Order Support Plan

This subfactor will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s Task Order Support Plan (TOSP) in response to the Sample Base Prompt (Attachment J-4) and the plan’s technical, programmatic, and administrative solutions.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s TOSP for viability, comprehension, clarity and completeness to determine whether the plan is acceptable.

Viability considers the likelihood of the Offeror’s TOSP and strategies therein of being successful. Comprehension considers whether the Offeror demonstrates, through their explanations, that their understanding of processes represents effective working knowledge of the related topics. Clarity considers whether the plan clearly addresses all required aspects.

Completeness considers whether the plan addresses all the following:

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria Page 9 of 12

a. The Offeror’s quality control plan that addresses:

1. The Offeror’s plan for Comprehensive Threat Analysis for cyber threats.

2. How the Offeror intends to schedule sustainment services at all locations simultaneously for a five-year period of performance.

3. How the Offeror intends to effectively implement equipment management, respond to emergencies, hazardous materials, and safety programs.

4. How the Offeror will respond to problems and deficiencies.

5. How the Offeror will handle challenging problems.

6. How the Offeror will perform inspections and the frequency of the inspections.

7. How the Offeror will sustain the network to ensure SLA performance.

b. The Offeror’s schedule for all 5 phases of performance for the Sample Base Prompt.

c. The Offeror’s management plan for the responsibilities identified in Sections 2 and 3 of the BIM IDIQ PWS (Attachment J-6) in consideration of the Sample Base Prompt.

d. The Offeror’s plan to execute the following phases in performing on the Sample Base Prompt:

1. Phase 1 – The Offeror’s approach to conducting a site survey, to include:

A. Labor skill mix involved.

B. Equipment/software used.

C. Timelines and durations.

D. Use of subcontractors and the roles of team members (as applicable where the Offeror is using teaming arrangements).

2. Phase 2 – The Offeror’s approach to operating the Government’s network, to include:

A. Labor skill mix involved with normal operations.

B. Labor skill mix involved with contingency operations.

C. Use of subcontractors and the roles of team members (as applicable where the Offeror is using teaming arrangements).

D. List and quantity of equipment provided and/or used by the offeror to operate the network.

3. Phase 3 – The Offeror’s approach to delivering a design and architecture to the Government, to include how the Offeror will coordinate with the Government to ultimately provide an acceptable design and architecture of a modernized network, to include:

A. Labor skill mix involved.

B. Use of subcontractors and the roles of team members (as applicable where the Offeror is using teaming arrangements).

C. Unique spectrum and connection challenges.

D. Notional NIPR architecture that meets the SLA requirements identified in the BIM IDIQ PWS (Attachment J-6).

E. Notional SIPR architecture that meets the SLA requirements identified in

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria Page 10 of 12 the BIM IDIQ PWS (Attachment J-6).

F. A list, including quantities, of the equipment required to implement the architecture.

G. Clear articulation of how the notional solution increases network efficiency, network effectiveness, quality of service, and quality of experience.

4. Phase 4 – The Offeror’s approach to installing and otherwise implementing the accepted design, to include:

A. Managing the installation of systems and subsystems including coordination with DAF organizations and local staffing, which are impacted by planned outages and turnover.

B. The use of the Offeror’s Network Operations Center (NOC) for initial provisioning of systems and subsystems.

C. Labor skill mix involved with normal operations.

D. Labor skill mix involved with contingency operations.

E. Use of subcontractors and the roles of team members (as applicable where the Offeror is using teaming arrangements).

F. Timelines and durations.

5. Phase 5 – The Offeror’s approach to operating the modernized network, to include:

A. How the Offeror’s Network Operations Center (NOC) will be staffed, to include labor skill mix, for normal day-to-day operations and for contingency (beyond normal) operations.

B. How the Offeror will staff on-site support, to include labor skill mix, for normal day-to-day operations and for contingency (beyond normal) operations.

C. List of quantity and equipment provided and/or used by the offeror to operate the network.

D. Use of subcontractors and the roles of team members (as applicable where the Offeror is using teaming arrangements).

If the Offeror’s TOSP is viable, demonstrates an effective comprehension of the related topics, is clear, and addresses all of the details of the plan as identified in Section M, Paragraph 2.4.2, then it will have met the requirements of the solicitation. If it is missing any of those aspects, it will not have met the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 6: Factor 3, Subfactor 2 – Task Order Support Plan Ratings Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

2.5. Volume 4: Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Commitment This factor will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. This factor assesses whether the Offeror’s ability to meet Small Business Participation Commitment requirements.

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria Page 11 of 12

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) (Attachment J-5) and the documentation supporting the Offeror’s ability to meet Small Business Participation Commitment requirements on other contracts.

The Government will evaluate the SBPCD for the following:

a. A signature from the Offeror’s authorized individual.

b. Relevant supporting documentation to demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

c. A commitment to achieve at least 30.00% of the total value of the IDIQ to be provided by Small Businesses (through any combination of Prime Contractor and subcontractor efforts), as indicated by their input for item 2 in Table 1 of the

SBPCD.

d. A commitment to achieve at least the minimum required percentages of the total value of the IDIQ for each of the four Small Business categories, as indicated by their input for items 3 through 6 in Table 1 of the SBPCD.

e. A list of at least 5 Small Businesses, to include at least 1 Small Disadvantaged Business active in the 8(a) Business Development Program and at least 1 Small Business of each socioeconomic category, as indicated by their input in section 2B of the SBPCD.

f. Relevant supporting documentation demonstrating a substantive commitment of a variety of complex work allocated to small businesses.

Note: The work to be performed directly by a Small Business prime offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract.

The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s ability to meet Small Business Participation commitments through the documentation they have provided as well as through the Offeror’s previous efforts as reported in Government systems (such as CPARS, eSRS, etc.). The evaluation will consider the extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and the extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan for those contracts (when applicable).

If the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document is complete, complies with the requirements established regarding approach and understanding of small business objectives is adequate, then it will have met the requirements of the solicitation. If it is missing

J-8 Section M, Evaluation Criteria Page 12 of 12 any of those aspects, it will not have met the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 7: Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Commitment Ratings Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Regarding the Small Business Subcontracting Plan As stated in Section L, if required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP), the plan will not be included in the evaluation to determine whether Factor 4 is rated “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. However, in the case that an Offeror is found to be an apparent awardee, the Offeror’s SBSP must be determined to be acceptable by the PCO, cognizant USAF Small Business Professional, and cognizant SBA Procurement Center Representative prior to receipt of award as a matter of determining whether the Offeror is responsible.