Attachment_8_-_Section_M_(5_August_2014).pdf

Addenda to FAR 52.212-2

Evaluation Criteria for the

Acquisition of Commercial Items

For the

AN/FMQ-22 Automated Meteorological System (AMS)

5 August 2014

52.212-2 Addenda Page 1 of 12

Section Content:

1.0 - Source Selection

2.0 - Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

3.0 - Volume I – Executive Summary

4.0 - Volume II – Technical Proposal

5.0 - Volume III – Price Proposal

6.0 - Volume IV – Performance Confidence

7.0 - Volume V – Contract Documentation

1.0 Source Selection

1.1 Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2.

Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, and acceptable performance confidence assessment, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (and supplements) and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) are available electronically (http://farsite.hill.af.mil). The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) of this solicitation. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All offers shall be evaluated for technical acceptability, price and performance confidence assessment. Failure to meet any criteria in any subfactor shall result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable in its entirety. While the Government’s Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire evaluation.

1.2 Discussions: It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions.

Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA determines that discussions are in its best interest. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) incorporated in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. Exchanges with Offerors after receipt of

52.212-2 Addenda Page 2 of 12 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm%23P25_3805 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ proposals are governed by FAR 15.306 - Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the AN/FMQ-22 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Program. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.4 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject (as unacceptable) any proposals that DO NOT conform to the instructions provided in the RFP.

1.5 Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. “Deficiency” is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered easily correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition in accordance with FAR 15.306(c).

1.6 Government Furnished Property (GFP): The Firm Fixed Price on Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 0003 will include packaging and shipping all GFP from the incumbent contractor’s locations to the offeror’s company. The solicitation contains a description of all Government property that the offeror will have access to, based on the GFP availability as of the date of solicitation release. The actual amount of GFP available at contract award is dynamic; therefore the GFP list provided at time of award may differ slightly depending on usage of existing GFP between solicitation and award timeframe and procurement of additional GFP between solicitation and award time frame. Use of Government property not already identified as part of this RFP is not authorized, unless the final GFP list applicable at contract award is different.

2.0 – Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1 The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors. The Government will evaluate for acceptability using the factors described below:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor A: Technical Approach Subfactor B: Management Approach Subfactor C: Experience Factor 2: Price Factor 3: Performance Confidence

52.212-2 Addenda Page 3 of 12

2.2 Evaluation Methodology:

Technical acceptability will be evaluated on all Offeror’s proposals. Volume II (Technical Proposal) of the Offeror’s proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria stated in Section 4 of this document. Volume III of the Offeror’s proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria stated in Section 5 of this document. Volume IV (Performance Confidence) of the Offeror’s proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria stated in Section 6 of this document.

3.0 Volume I – Executive Summary

3.1 To be considered and evaluated for award, an offeror shall submit everything identified in Paragraphs 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 of ITO "other information required" and the verifications must be acceptable.

4.0 Volume II Technical Proposal

4.1 Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability: The proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed and offer complete technical solutions to all portions of the PWS. The Government may make a final determination as to the offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the offeror. Award will be made to the offeror with the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptable ratings for the non-price factors.

4.2 Factor I – Technical Acceptability: When conducting proposal evaluations, the SSEB shall evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” Failure to meet any criteria in any Subfactor – in the Technical Acceptability Factor – results in an offer being determined technically unacceptable in its entirety. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

(a) Technical Approach

(b) Management Approach

(c) Experience

52.212-2 Addenda Page 4 of 12

The technical evaluation provides an assessment of the contractor’s capability to satisfy the Government’s PWS requirements.

4.3 Technical Acceptability Factor

4.3.1 Sub-Factor A: Technical Approach – Logistical Support and Computer Resource Support (PWS Sections 4, 5, 6, & 7)

4.3.1.1 Proposals will be evaluated based on offeror’s demonstrated technical approach for meeting the requirements set forth in the PWS, Sections 4, 5, 6, & 7 requirements identified below:

• Contractor Performance – ability to meet Operational Availability (AO) requirements (PWS para 6.2)

• Helpdesk (PWS para 6.1)

• Reliability and Maintainability – including, but not limited to, Obsolescence and

System Designs, Enhancements, and Upgrades (PWS para 7.2) o Include rationale for how the resolution proposed for obsolescence will be fully completed while still continuously meeting all CLS requirements

• Spares Management (PWS para 6.3)

• Support Equipment (PWS para 6.3.1)

• Configuration Management (PWS para 6.6)

• System Manuals/TOs (PWS para 6.7)

• Government Furnished Property Management (PWS para 6.9)

• Engineering Change Proposals/Special Projects (PWS para 7.2)

• Training/Training Materials (PWS para 6.8)

• Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation (PWS para 6.4)

• Computer Resource Support (PWS para 5.1)

• Security Accreditation (PWS para 5.2)

• Time Compliance Network Orders (PWS para 5.2.7, 5.3)

• Laptop Option (PWS para 5.3)

An acceptable approach shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all requirements set forth in each of the specific bullets listed above have been considered, defined and satisfied; (B) an explicit understanding

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

52.212-2 Addenda Page 5 of 12 of all technical requirements; (C) that the offeror is capable of satisfying requirements;

(D) that the offeror’s approach is realistically achievable; and (E) if the technical approach utilizes subcontractor(s), the prime contractor is responsible for performing the primary and vital requirements.

4.3.2 Sub-Factor B: Management Approach – Program Management, System Sustainment Management and Configuration Management (PWS Sections 3, 6, & 7)

4.3.2.1 Proposals will be evaluated based on offeror’s demonstrated management approach and must reflect a clear understanding of all management requirements, be capable of satisfying requirements, and be realistically achievable. The Management Subfactor consists of four (4) plans entitled: (a) Program Management Plan (PMP); (b) Transition Plan; and (c) Configuration Management Plan (CMP); and (d) Quality Assurance Plan.

(a) Program Management Plan (PMP). The offeror’s proposed PMP shall be evaluated to ensure that PWS Section 3.1 criteria are met.

An acceptable approach shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all processes and programs by which the contractor will effectively execute the requirements of the PWS have been considered, defined and satisfied; (B) an organizational chart of all key contractor employees, consultants and subcontractors that contains the appropriate level of expertise and skill mix for the successful performance of the AN/FMQ-22 program; (C) an explicit understanding and methodology for the performance of special projects; (D) that the plan is realistically achievable; (E) how contractually required parts will be obtained from AN/FMQ-22 OEMs; and (F) how the offeror will maintain contractually required communication with the Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) in the form of IPTs, PMRs, TIMs, etc.

(b) Transition Plan. The offeror’s proposed transition plan shall be evaluated to ensure that PWS Section 3.5 criteria are met.

An acceptable Transition Plan (and Sub-Plans) shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) a methodology and staffing planned to meet all requirements of an orderly transition without negative impact on system operations in the time frame required; (B) a comprehensive, realistic, overall strategy to include timeframes, inventory relocation, capital investment considerations,;

and (C) a reasonable methodology to maintain the AN/FMQ-22 at an AO of 96% on day 1 after transition is complete.

(c) Configuration Management Plan (CMP). The offeror’s proposed CMP shall be evaluated to ensure that PWS Section 6.6 criteria are met.

An acceptable CMP shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) a methodology to maintain software and configuration for 70 AN/FMQ-22 systems worldwide; (B) a methodology to maintain hardware configuration

52.212-2 Addenda Page 6 of 12 for 70 AN/FMQ-22 systems worldwide; and (C) a comprehensive, realistic, overall strategy to identify, test, provide data, integrate and field obsolescence based modifications.

(d) Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP). The offeror’s proposed QAPP shall be evaluated to ensure that PWS Section 3.3.1 criteria are met.

At a minimum the QAPP shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) a methodology to address quality issues and risks; (B) a complete cross-reference matrix of contract requirements to contractor operating instructions/work instructions; and (C) a comprehensive, feasible, overall strategy to track corrective actions, analyze trends, and maintain quality assurance records and data.

4.3.3 Sub-Factor C: Experience

4.3.3.1 Proposals will be evaluated based on offeror’s demonstrated experience in Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) services specifically related to weather systems, in accordance with the key elements listed below:

• Meteorological System Logistics Support: IAW PWS Section 6

• Reliability and Maintainability (Obsolescence, System Design Changes, Enhancements, and Upgrades), Systems Engineering, and Configuration Management: IAW PWS Section 7

• Computer Resource Support IAW PWS para 5.1

• Time Compliance Network Orders: IAW PWS para 5.3.5

• Security Accreditation - DoD Information Assurance Certification and

Accreditation Process (DIACAP): IAW PWS para 5.2

The contractor-provided documentation of at least one year of continuous experience (within the past five years) and the plan for transition of core personnel. This must be demonstrated with substantiating documentation (a document or documentation that can be independently verified by the Government); anecdotal evidence will not be counted as acceptable.

An acceptable approach shall provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate related evidence of experience with the key elements set forth in the ITO, paragraph 4.3.3.1 and a feasible method to integrate new core personnel into the team to ensure smooth technical transition of expertise and continuity.

52.212-2 Addenda Page 7 of 12

5.0 Volume III – Price Proposal

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP calculated as stated in paragraph 5.2 of this document. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for the criteria of Reasonableness and Balance.

5.1 Evaluation Criteria

5.1.1 Reasonableness: The proposed prices and all labor rates will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it will represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

5.1.2 Balance: The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices, including labor rates, 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 as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1.

5.2 Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be calculated for use in evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be the summation of all firm-fixed priced contract line items, to include all ordering periods as well as the six-month option to extend services clause 52.217-8; calculation method of each CLIN total is discussed below. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only;

the TEP is not representative of the actual contractual value. (Note 1: The Government will utilize the offeror’s “TEP worksheet” submission, and TEP worksheet, in its evaluation. Note 2: The offeror shall recognize that the firm fixed unit prices the offeror submits on the “TEP Worksheet” must consistently match the line item schedule pricing on the Standard Form 1449, which will be contractually binding.)

(a) CLIN X001 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS): The Government will evaluate the price for CLIN X001 by multiplying the offeror-proposed monthly cost for each specific ordering period in the TEP Worksheet for this specific CLIN by the number of months in that specific ordering period, resulting in an extended total for each ordering period. The total price for CLIN X001 is the summation of the extended totals for all six

(6) ordering periods under CLIN X001 and will be included in the TEP.

(b) CLIN X002 Laptop Option: The Government will evaluate the price for CLIN X002 by multiplying the offeror-proposed monthly cost for each specific ordering period in the TEP Worksheet for this specific CLIN by the number of months in that specific ordering period, resulting in an extended total for each ordering period. The total price for CLIN X002 is the summation of the extended totals for all six (6) ordering periods under CLIN X002 and will be included in the TEP.

52.212-2 Addenda Page 8 of 12

(c) CLIN 0003 Transition: The Government will include the offeror’s proposed transition price in the TEP.

(d) CLIN X004 Special Projects/Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs): The Government will evaluate the price for the ECPs/Special Projects CLIN by using the Government-provided Best Estimating Quantity (BEQ) identified in the “CLIN X004 BEQ” tab of Attachment 5 TEP Worksheet. This BEQ represents a Government estimate of the number of hours for each labor category and Period of Performance (PoP) that the Government anticipates ordering under this requirement. This BEQ is not a guaranteed amount, but is merely provided for evaluation purposes. To reach the evaluated price for this CLIN, the respective fully burdened Fixed Labor Rates (offeror-provided rates from the “Fixed Rates Tables CLIN X004” tab located in the Attachment 5 TEP Worksheet) are multiplied by the BEQ hours, resulting in an extended total for each ordering period. All offerors will be evaluated using the same BEQ. The total price for CLIN X004 is the summation of the extended totals for all six (6) ordering periods under CLIN X004 and will be included in the TEP.

(e) CLIN X005 Not Separately Priced (NSP) Contract Delivery Requirements List (CDRL): CLIN X005 is a NSP CLIN. As a result, there is no separately computed fixed price for this CLIN. The costs associated with delivering the NSP CDRLs required under CLIN X005, and explicitly stated in Solicitation Exhibit A, shall be included in the offeror’s pricing provided for CLIN X0001. The NSP CDRLs included under this CLIN are as follows: A001, A002, A003, A004, A005, A006, A007, A008, A009, A010, A011, A012, A013, A014, A015, A016, and A017.

(f) CLIN X006 Separately Priced Contract Delivery Requirements List (CDRL):

CLIN X006 is Separately Priced CLIN. The purpose of this CLIN is to provide the Government the option to purchase any and/or all of the CDRLs identified in Solicitation Exhibit B. The Separately Priced CDRLs included under this CLIN are as follows: B001, B002, and B003. The Government reserves the right to purchase any and/or all of these CDRLs multiple times across any combination of ordering periods. The Government will evaluate the price for the Separately Priced CDRLs CLIN X006 by using the Government-provided Best Estimating Quantity (BEQ) identified in the “CLIN X006 BEQ” tab of Attachment 5 TEP Worksheet. This BEQ represents a Government estimate of the number CDRL purchases for each category and Period of Performance (PoP) that the Government anticipates ordering under this requirement. This BEQ is not a guaranteed amount, but is merely provided for evaluation purposes. To reach the evaluated price for this CLIN, the respective CDRL prices (offeror-provided pricing from the “SP CDRL Pricing Table CLIN X006” tab located in the Attachment 5 TEP Worksheet) are multiplied by the BEQ quantities for each category, resulting in an extended total for each ordering period. All offerors will be evaluated using the same BEQ. The total price for CLIN X006 is the summation of the extended totals for all six

(6) ordering periods under CLIN X006 and will be included in the TEP.

(g) CLIN X007 Travel: The contractor shall not propose any pricing for Travel CLIN X007 as this CLIN is not included in the TEP.

52.212-2 Addenda Page 9 of 12

6.0 Volume IV – Performance Confidence

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

6.1 Evaluation Process: The performance confidence evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance Confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical Acceptability Subfactors A and B (technical approach and management approach). The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis. In conducting the Performance Confidence evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Performance Confidence proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) (or other databases) interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

52.212-2 Addenda Page 10 of 12 requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition and will be considered in the evaluation.

6.1.1 Recency Assessment: An assessment of the performance confidence information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this Solicitation. Performance confidence information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

6.1.2 Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts/projects relate to the applicable technical subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner.1 The Past Performance Questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

6.1.3 Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors

1 Only the past performance effort which is related to the work the offeror is proposing to perform will contribute to the confidence assessment. Take, for example, an RFP for a contact to manufacture, provide logistical support, and provide user training for “System X.” If an offeror submits recent past performance contracts involving manufacturing effort which is “essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires,” but the offeror is not proposing to manufacture System X (i.e., another team member or subcontractor is proposed to perform System X manufacture), the offeror’s past manufacturing performance would not contribute to the System X manufacturing performance confidence assessment.

52.212-2 Addenda Page 11 of 12 and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements.

Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment/Color Description

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE(N)/WHITE Quality and/or performance information is not available.

6.1.3 Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2). More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

7.0 Volume V – Contract Documentation

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to ensure they have submitted all required documentation identified in Paragraph 7.0 of ITO (Contract Documentation).

7.1 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: In addition to meeting the identified factors and sub-factors, in order for offerors to be rated acceptable they are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements specifically stated in the addenda for 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 to be eligible for contract award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

52.212-2 Addenda Page 12 of 12