16_TLOSS_Sec_M.pdf

REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS FA8810-19-R-0002

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER

REMOTE SENSING SYSTEMS DIRECTORATE

Tools, Applications, and Processing (TAP) Laboratory and

Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) Battlespace Awareness Center (OBAC) Support Services (TLOSS)

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Source Selection

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value tradeoff source selection, conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplements (DFARS) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil (Note: this site is projected to transition to https://www.acquisition.gov). The Government will select the best value offer, based upon an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certification, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will provide the best value for the work to be performed. This approach allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest rated proposal to achieve a best-value contract award. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the Offeror who proposes a higher total evaluated price outweighs the cost difference. 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.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single contract for TAP Lab/OBAC Support Services.

1.3 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP)

The GFP listed in Section J is equally available to all potential offerors and rental equivalency is not required. The Government will provide the GFP in Attachment 2 to the successful offeror who will be responsible for it IAW FAR 52.245-1. No additional GFP will be provided.

1.4 Discussions

The Government intends to make award upon evaluation of initial proposals without discussions.

Therefore, offerors are highly encouraged to use their best efforts in proposal preparation and to include their very best terms in their offer. If it is determined to be in the Government’s best interests, a competitive range may be established and discussions may be held. In that case, to promote effectiveness in the competition and efficiency in the evaluation, the Government will initially set, and may potentially make any later adjustments to, the competitive range of only the most highly rated proposals considering: (1) whether the number of proposals received exceeds the amount at which the competition can be effectively managed to warrant a reduction in the number of proposals selected for further evaluation or discussion, (2) a proposal’s potential to achieve complete correction through efficient, equitable use of discussions, or (3) any particular advantage or benefit that a proposal presents which is worthy, in the Government’s judgment, to pursue through discussions, based on the evaluation criteria described in Section 3 of this document.

If included in the competitive range, the offeror shall provide Evaluation Notices (EN) responses and submit change pages that update all affected volumes of the offeror’s proposal. Additional instructions will be provided with ENs. If the Government enters into discussions, the Government reserves the right to not go into discussions on the Subfactor 1 scenario response described in paragraph 3.3.1. Therefore, technical acceptability and technical risk of the scenario response will be based on the initial submission. As such, the offeror shall ensure that each component of the scenario is thoroughly addressed.

1.5 Number of Proposals

Each offeror shall submit only one proposal as the prime offeror.

1.6 Solicitation Requirements, Terms & Conditions

To be eligible for selection, 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 assessments/evaluations of Volume IV. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

Alternate proposals will not be considered. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale to the Contracting Officer within 5 days of the release of the solicitation.

1.7 Definitive Responsibility Criteria

No award will be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror must meet each of the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. In addition to the considerations set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1, any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation must satisfy all of the following conditions as of the date of contract award. In the event that a proposal fails to comply with any of the following criteria, the Government may deem the proposal to be ineligible for award irrespective of the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal relative to the factors listed in Section M.

1.7.1 Security Clearances.

All facilities (except SAP facilities) and personnel proposed to perform this contract are cleared to the security levels required to perform the work described in the PWS (see DD Form 254).

1.7.2. Certifications/Representations.

The Offeror has satisfactorily completed all certifications/representations required by this RFP.

1.7.3 Limitations on Subcontracting.

The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates that it will pay not more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly-situated entities.

1.7.4 Air Force Space Contractor Responsibility Watch List (CRWL).

In accordance with Section 1612 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018 (Pub. L. No. 115-91) and SMC Instruction (SMCI) 64-101, the Contracting Officer may not award a contract to a contractor included on the CRWL without making a determination of responsibility and obtaining the approval of the SMC Commander.

1.7.5 Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan

The Offeror’s Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan is acceptable to the Contracting Officer.

1.8 Complete Proposal Submittal

The Government has the right to consider any source of information submitted as part of the proposal in evaluating and selecting the overall best value offer.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

2.1.1 Factor 1: Technical

2.1.1.1 Subfactor 1: Sample Problem Response

2.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan

2.1.1.3 Subfactor 3: Sustainment of 3rd Party Capabilities

2.1.1.4 Subfactor 4: Intellectual Property Rights

2.1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

2.1.3 Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

In accordance with FAR 15.304(c), when combined, all evaluation factors, other than Cost/Price, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Factor 1 (Technical) is significantly more important than Fact 2 (Past Performance) which is more important than Factor 3 (Cost/Price).

Within Factor 1 (Technical), Subfactor 1 is significantly more important than Subfactors 2, 3 and 4 on an individual basis, and Subfactors 2, 3 and 4 are equal to each other.

2.3 Rating Summary

The factors and subfactors rating matrix summary is shown in Table 2-1: Rating Matrix

Table 2-1: Rating Matrix

3.0 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR EVALUATION RATINGS

The Technical Evaluation provides for two distinct but related ratings: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor. A Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be given at the subfactor level.

The subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating and risk rating for the Technical Factor.

3.1 Technical Rating

The Government will assign a Technical Capability Rating (see Table 3-1) to each Subfactor of the Offeror’s Technical Volume based upon its assessment of strengths and deficiencies contained in that Volume. The Technical Capability Rating reflects the extent to which the Government has determined the Offeror’s proposal satisfies the requirements of the RFP in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified below. The Government reserves the right to accept or not accept the Offeror’s self-identified strengths.

Offerors are hereby notified that the Government may incorporate the basis for any Strengths earned by the offeror into the resulting Contract.

STRENGTH: A Strength is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

DEFICIENCY: A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Technical Risk

Rating

Technical Risk

Rating

Technical Risk

Rating

Technical Risk

Rating

Factor 2: Past

Performance

Blue

Purple

Green

Yellow

Red

Factor 3: Cost

Factor 1:

Technical

Subfactor 4: Intellectual Property

Rights

Technical Rating (Color and Adjectival)

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

Technical Rating (Color and Adjectival)

Subfactor 2: Staffing Matrix Subfactor 3: 3rd Party Capability

Sustainment Subfactor 1: Sample Problem Response

Technical Rating (Color and Adjectival)

Y/N/TBD/ N/A

Summarize the MPC Adjustments

Technical Rating (Color and Adjectival)

Low

Moderate

High

Unacceptable

Low

Moderate

High

Unacceptable

Low

Moderate

High

Unacceptable

Low

Moderate

High

Unacceptable

Blue

Purple

Green

Yellow

Red

Blue

Purple

Green

Yellow

Red

Blue

Purple

Green

Yellow

Red

Performance Confidence Assessment

Substantial Confidence

Satisfactory Confidence

Neutral Confidence

Limited Confidence

No Confidence

Summarize any presence of unbalanced pricing

Reasonable

Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Government's Most Probable Cost (MPC) Adjustment

Total Proposed Price (TPP)

Realism (Cost CLINs only)

Unbalanced Pricing

Table 3-1: Technical Ratings

Color Rating

Adjectival 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 not awardable.

3.2 Technical Risk Rating

The Government will assign a Technical Risk Rating (see Table 3-2) to each Subfactor of the Offeror’s Technical Volume based upon its assessment of weaknesses and significant weaknesses contained in that Volume. In addition, whenever the Government adjusts a proposed element of cost associated with a CPFF CLIN, it may also assign a weakness or significant weakness to the appropriate Technical subfactor.

WEAKNESS: A weakness is a flaw in the offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS: A significant weakness is a flaw in the offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Table 3-2: Technical Risk Ratings 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 contactor 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.

3.3 Technical Subfactors

The four technical subfactors will be evaluated as follows:

3.3.1 Subfactor 1: Sample Problem Response

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s response to the sample problem clearly demonstrates its understanding of the TAP Lab and OBAC environments, to include the SOFA framework, by appropriately describing the processes, roles, relevant schedule milestones, and responsibilities of all players involved in advancing capabilities into operations.

3.3.2 Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed staffing plan clearly demonstrates its understanding of the PWS requirements. This includes whether the contractor’s proposed staffing plan addresses PWS requirements; documents realistic hiring timelines, performance incentives and retention strategies; and describes an appropriate number of FTEs, skill mix, qualifications, and experience for all proposed positions, including subcontractors.

3.3.3 Subfactor 3: 3rd Party Developed Capability Sustainment

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed approach to sustain capabilities developed by third party vendors clearly demonstrates a comprehensive process whereby the support services contractor will assume responsibility for the sustainment of software applications and other software capabilities developed by 3rd party developers. This includes the explanations of contractor processes to sustain the capabilities throughout the lifecycle as well as the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved.

3.3.4 Subfactor 4: Intellectual Property (IP) Rights

The Government will evaluate the extent to which:

a) The Offeror proposes in Attachment 5 to Volume IV to deliver intellectual property rights that satisfies the Government’s minimum needs as described in this RFP (e.g.

Section L and Attachment 5 Tables 1-1 through 1-3 and 3).

b) The analysis conducted by the Offeror (including all assumptions made) demonstrates that the quantities associated with the licenses for commercial items and computer software the Offeror proposes to deliver to the Government listed in Table 2 of its completed Attachment 5 will be sufficient to successfully operate the TAP Lab and

OBAC.

4.0 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will determine a Performance Confidence Assessment of the Offeror’s ability to perform the contract based upon (1) the relevance of the Offeror’s past performance and (2) quality of that past performance. The Government will conduct its past performance assessment based in part upon its evaluation of not more than three contracts the Offeror provides in Volume II of its proposal; any contracts provided in that Volume that exceed that number will not be evaluated. The Government will use Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPAR) and interviews with program managers and contracting officers. For those contracts that are not required to report using CPARs, the Government will rely on interviews with program managers and contracting officers using the similar format as the CPAR. Under such circumstances, the Government will provide the Offeror an opportunity to respond to any negative or adverse past performance information received by the Government to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

4.1 Relevance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. When performing its evaluation, the Government will first evaluate whether the proposed past performance is relevant and if so make a relevancy assessment of that past performance in accordance with Table 4-1. The Government has determined that only contracts that are ongoing or that have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation are relevant, and that newly-awarded contacts without a performance history of at least six months are not relevant. Second, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s contracts to determine the extent to which they were/are of similar scope, magnitude, complexity and dollar value as this solicitation to determine whether that/those contracts are relevant. Third, the Government will only attribute the past performance of a parent company, predecessor company, subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, or the Offeror’s workforce, management, or facilities to the Offeror if that Offeror demonstrates those resources will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that those resources will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. If the Government determines that the past performance information is not relevant, it will not assess the quality of that past performance.

Table 4-1: Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Rating 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.

4.2 Quality

When evaluating the quality of the Offeror’s past performance, the Government will consider the Offeror’s demonstrated record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good workmanship, the contractor’s record of forecasting and controlling costs, the contractor’s adherence to contract schedules including the administrative aspects of performance, the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, the contractor’s reporting into databases, the contractor’s record of integrity and business ethics, and the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer. Based upon its review of the information described in Section M-4.1, the Government will use one of the Quality of Performance Assessment ratings in Table 4-2 to the contract under which the Offeror realized that past performance.

Table 4-2: Quality of Performance Assessment Ratings

Rating Description

Exceptional Performance (technical and cost) meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance (technical and cost) meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

Performance (technical and cost) meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Not Assessed Contractual performance was not assessed

Marginal

Performance (technical and cost) does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Performance (technical and cost) does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

4.3 Performance Confidence

The Government will then assign an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating (as defined in Table 4-3) to the Past Performance Factor.

Table 4-3: Performance Confidence Assessments

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 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

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.

5.0 FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE

5.1 Government Cost/Price Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal for reasonableness, realism, and unbalanced pricing. In the evaluation, the Government may use data external to the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. For all CLIN types, the evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The government-calculated Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for the best value trade-off decision.

5.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will calculate a TEP as shown below in Table 5-1: Total Evaluated Price.

Table 5-1: Total Evaluated Price

CLIN

(A)

Title

(B)

Contract Type

(C)

Cost $

(D)

Fee $

(E)

Total CLIN Amount

0001 SOFA Specific Support Services - BASE

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

0002 TAP Lab and OBAC Support Services - BASE

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

0003 3rd Party Developed Capability Sustainment -

BASE

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

0004 Other Direct Costs/Travel

- BASE

CR $8,550,000 N/A D

1001 SOFA Specific Support Services - Option 1

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

1002 TAP Lab and OBAC Support Services - Option

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

1003 3rd Party Developed Capability Sustainment - Option 1

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

1004 Other Direct Costs/Travel Option 1

CR $2,500,000 N/A D

2001 SOFA Specific Support Services - Option 2

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

2002 TAP Lab and OBAC Support Services - Option

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

2003 3rd Party Developed Capability Sustainment - Option 2

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

2004 Other Direct Costs/Travel Option 2

CR $1,950,000 N/A D

3001 SOFA Specific Support Services - Option 3

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

3002 TAP Lab and OBAC Support Services - Option

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

3003 3rd Party Developed Capability Sustainment - Option 3

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

3004 Other Direct Costs/Travel Option 3

CR $5,250,000 N/A D

5001 Data and Reports

EXHIBIT A

NSP NSP NSP NSP

5002 Data and Reports

EXHIBIT B

NSP NSP NSP NSP

5003 Data and Reports

EXHIBIT C

NSP NSP NSP NSP

5004 Data and Reports

EXHIBIT D

NSP NSP NSP NSP

6001 SOFA Specific Support Services – Extension

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

6002 TAP Lab and OBAC support services – Extension

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

6003 3rd Party Developed Capability Sustainment – Extension

CPFF Gov’t MPC Proposed Fixed Fee

D+E

6004 Other Direct Costs/Travel –Extension

CR $1,125,000 N/A D

7000 Intellectual Property Rights

FFP N/A N/A Offeror’s Proposed FFP

TEP Sum of above

5.2.1 Fixed Fee

The total fixed fee shall not exceed 10% of the total estimated cost (excluding the cost of money) for all CPFF CLINs.

5.3 Evaluation Area Details

The proposal must contain sufficient details for the Government evaluation of the following areas:

5.3.1 Reasonableness (Applies to all proposed prices) –

5.3.1.1 The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposal for reasonableness, where reasonableness is an assessment of whether the price is too high. The price is reasonable, if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that amount which would be paid by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Reference FAR 31.201-3.

5.3.1.2 In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more analysis techniques described in, but not limited to, FAR 15.404-1.

5.3.1.3 A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal un-awardable.

In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable are ineligible for award, and as a result, a reasonableness determination will not be made for technically unacceptable, un-awardable proposals.

5.3.2 Realism (Applies to CPFFCLINs)

5.3.2.1 Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1).

5.3.2.2 The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposal for cost realism; the assessment will analyze whether the proposed price is too low.

5.3.2.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed costs as provided in the Cost/Price Volume via a cost analysis approach. This process involves the Government’s review and evaluation of specific cost elements of the Offeror’s cost.

Any proposed cost element may be adjusted based upon the Government analysis of each proposed cost element.

The cost analysis will consider the Offeror’s proposed approach.

Cost adjustments will consider weaknesses or significant weaknesses in the technical proposal that impact the costs.

Cost adjustments will also consider missing costs that will likely be incurred for the contract with the proposed solution.

Cost adjustments will consider any offeror-initiated unsubstantiated decrements to historical hours/costs.

It is the intent that all cost adjustments will be upward; there will not be any downward adjustments.

The cost adjustments will result in the Government’s Most Probable Cost (MPC) that will become part of the TEP calculation for best value consideration.

5.3.2.4 No MPC adjustment will be made for deficiencies; however, deficiencies may render the proposal unrealistic.

5.3.2.5 The Offeror’s proposal must be clear and convincing in demonstrating that the costs in the Offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding for the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)).

5.3.2.6 Over-proposing of unwanted tasks and associated costs will NOT result in a probable cost adjustment but may result in an unreasonableness determination.

5.3.2.7 An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of realism poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.3.3 Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to all contract line items)

5.3.3.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for the presence of unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

5.3.3.2 An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.3.4 Total Proposed Price (TPP)

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposal for accuracy in calculating the proposed Total Proposed Price (TPP) and for compliance with the instructions for calculating the proposed Total Proposed Price.

5.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will adjust the proposed TPP to incorporate the Government’s Most Probable Cost, and the Government-calculated TEP will be used by the Source Selection Authority in the best value decision process.

5.3.6 Insufficient Details

Insufficient details to support the determination of reasonableness, realism, or non-presence of unbalanced pricing, initially or subsequently, may be a consideration for excluding the Offeror’s proposal from the competitive range and further consideration for award. The burden of proof rests with the Offeror.

5.3.7 Consistency and Accuracy

Data in Volume IV (Model Contract) will be compared to the CLIN amounts and Rate Schedules in the Cost/Price Volume to ensure that the prices in the Cost/Price Volume flow to the CLINs in a consistent and accurate manner. If the Government discovers any inconsistency between the Model Contract and the Cost/Price Volume, the Model Contract will take precedence and will be used by the Government to calculate the Offeror’s TEP.

5.4 Volume IV - Executive Summary and Contract Volume

5.4.1 Contract Documentation

The proposal documentation contained in Volume IV will be reviewed to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. This will include the review of information submitted regarding Organizational Conflicts of Interest, Professional Employee Compensation, and Limitations on Subcontracting.

Portions of the provided Volume IV documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor responsibility.

5.4.2 Data in Volume IV

Data in Sections A-K of the solicitation will be compared to the CLIN amounts and Rate Schedules in the Cost/Price Volume to ensure that the prices in the Cost Volume flow to the CLINs in a consistent and accurate manner. Inaccuracy and inconsistency will be assessed as a responsibility issue.

5.4.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest

The Government will review the offeror’s OCI Mitigation Plan along with a completed OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist to ensure compliance with AFFARS 5352.209-9000 ALT II, III, IV, & VI (Oct 2010). In order to receive an affirmative responsibility determination, the Contracting Officer must conclude that the otherwise successful offeror’s proposed OCI mitigation plan is acceptable.

5.4.4 Air Force Space Contractor Responsibility Watch List (CRWL)

In accordance with Section 1612 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 (P.L. 115-91) and SMC Instruction (SMCI) 64-101, the contracting officer may not award a contract to a contractor included on the CRWL without making a determination of responsibility and obtaining the approval of the SMC Commander. A contractor that has been notified that it has been added to the CRWL may respond to this solicitation but must submit documentation in this volume describing how it has addressed the conditions that resulted in its inclusion on the CRWL and why those conditions will not impact performance on a contract resulting from this solicitation. The Contracting Officer will consider this information as well as other available information in making the determination of responsibility or nonresponsibility required by FAR 9.103.

In addition, in accordance with Section 1612 of the NDAA for FY18 (P.L. 115-91), SMCI 64- 101, and the SMC Class Deviation of FAR clause 52.244-2, Subcontracts, in this solicitation, the offeror must receive written consent of the Contracting Officer prior to subcontracting with subcontractors on the CRWL whose subcontracts are valued in excess of $3M or 5% of the prime contract value, whichever is lesser. The Contracting Officer may not provide this consent without obtaining the approval of the SMC Commander. Offerors must inform proposed subcontractors that they must notify the offeror if they have been notified by the SMC Commander that they have been included on the CRWL. In order to be considered for a subcontract, a proposed subcontractor that has been notified that it has been added to the CRWL must submit documentation in this volume describing how it has addressed the conditions that resulted in its inclusion on the CRWL and why those conditions will not impact its performance on a subcontract to a contract resulting from this solicitation. The proposed subcontractor may submit CRWL related documentation through the offeror or directly to the Contracting Officer as long as the information is received prior to the proposal due date. In addition, the offeror must submit its determination of subcontractor responsibility in this volume. The Contracting Officer will consider information provided by the offeror and the proposed subcontractor as well as other available information in determining whether to grant consent to subcontract.

5.4.5 Professional Employees Compensation Plan

In order to receive a contract award, a company must have an acceptable Professional Employee Compensation Plan. A company may have an excellent record of employee retention and may have a high fringe rate, but if the Professional Employee Compensation Plan does not support this, it is impossible to make a determination of acceptability. Without an acceptable plan, a company cannot receive contract award without opening discussions.

Utilizing the information submitted, based on the Employee Compensation Plan(s), the Government will evaluate the offeror’s/subcontractor(s) total compensation plan(s) in accordance with Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. The Government will assess if the Offeror provided adequate Employee Compensation Plan(s), in accordance with the ITO, for this solicitation.

Predecessor rates may not be used IAW FAR 52.222-46. Proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors may be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high quality work, and availability of required competent employees. Offerors are allowed to bid an approach different then the predecessor; therefore, a direct comparison may not possible. Data provided on the spreadsheet as well as any provided supporting data to the spreadsheet will be used in the evaluation. No further information will be used to verify the Employee Compensation.

5.4.6 Limitations on Subcontracting

The Government will evaluate the information the offeror provides to verify compliance with FAR 52.219-14, “Limitations on Subcontracting” Class Deviation 2019-O0003; whereby the offeror must demonstrate it will not pay more than 50 percent of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities.

Contract performance is defined as all direct labor and associated fringe benefits necessary to complete the effort, not including profit/fee or ODCs, for a period of performance.