Section M Evaluation Criteria.pdf

FAR 52.215-3 Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning

Purposes (Oct 1997)

(a) The Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this solicitation or to otherwise pay for the information solicited except as an allowable cost under other contracts as provided in subsection 31.205-18, Bid and proposal costs, of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

(b) Although "proposal" and "offeror" are used in this Request for Information, your response will be treated as information only. It shall not be used as a proposal.

(c) This solicitation is issued for the purpose of: Informing the Government’s acquisition strategy and future solicitation planning.

The documents attached to this solicitation for planning purposes are drafts and therefore are subject to change.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-31#FAR_31_205_18

BOULDER GROUND INNOVATION FACILITY (BGIF)

OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES (BOSS)

Section M

Evaluation Criteria (EC)

07 February 2025

Solicitation# FA8810-25-R-B003

Department of the Air Force

Space Systems Command (SSC) Space Sensing (SN)

Boulder OPIR TAP Lab, Colorado

Revision History

Revision Description Date

Contents

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

1.2 Competitive Range

1.3 Discussions

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

1.5 Rejection of Unrealistic or Unreasonable Offers

1.6 Solicitation Requirements, Terms & Conditions

1.7 Responsibility

1.7.1 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

1.7.2 Professional Employee Compensation Plan

1.7.3 Air Force Space Contractor Responsibility Watch List (CRWL)

1.8 Limitations on Subcontracting

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

1.10 Complete Proposal Submittal

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.2 Relative Importance

2.3 Gate Entry Criteria: Transition Plan

2.4 Factor 1: Technical Capability

2.4.1 Technical/Risk Rating Evaluation

2.4.2 Technical Capability Subfactors

2.5 Factor 2: Prior Experience

2.5.1 Ratings

2.6 Factor 3: Cost/Price Evaluation

2.6.1 Cost/Price Evaluation

2.6.2 Total Evaluated Price

2.6.3 Evaluation Area Details

2.6.3.6

2.7 Factor 4: Small Business Participation

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value full tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, Source Selection, and FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3, the DoD Source Selection Procedures (August 20, 2022), the Department of the Air Force FAR Supplement (DAFFARS) subpart 5315.3, and the Department of the Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically.

The Government intends to make a single award by selecting the Offeror, who is determined to be responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, and its supplements, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is evaluated, based on the evaluation Factors and Subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on a detailed assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria.

This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation Factors, and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical approach/technical risk of the higher price offer outweighs the cost/price 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; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Competitive Range

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary at any point during the source selection. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Competitive range determinations may occur more than once. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.3 Discussions

The Government may enter discussions after it makes a competitive range determination of the most highly rated proposals based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria (see FAR15.306(c)). 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) and 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.

If the Government enters into discussions, the Government reserves the right to not go into discussions on the Subfactor 1.1 sample problem. Therefore, technical acceptability and technical risk of the sample problem will be based on the initial submission. As such, the offeror shall ensure that each component of the scenario is thoroughly addressed.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential," and whether the Offerors are offered the opportunity to modify their proposal, is within the sole discretion of the Government. By correction potential the Government means it will be evaluating each deficiency for the ability for the deficiency to be remedied and the time requirement necessary to complete that remedial action. This determination will be inherent to each subfactor evaluation and will not specifically be recorded unless the Government deems it necessary. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.5 Rejection of Unrealistic or Unreasonable Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic/unreasonable in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or unrealistically low in cost, such that the proposal is determined to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

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 document any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale as part of the proposal.

1.7 Responsibility

No award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1, have an acceptable Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan and professional employee compensation plan. The Contracting Officer may request Offerors to provide additional information to make a responsibility determination.

1.7.1 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

The Government will review the Offeror’s OCI Plan along with a completed OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist to ensure compliance with DAFFARS 5352.209-9000 ALT II, III, VI & VI (July 2023) for areas of potential conflicts. As discussed in Section L, the resolution of OCI issues is treated as part of the Contracting Officer's contractor responsibility determination. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award.

1.7.2 Professional Employee 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.

1.7.3 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 SSC Instruction (SCCI) 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 SSC 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), SCCI 64-101, and the SCC 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 SSC Commander. Offerors must inform proposed subcontractors that they must notify the offeror if they have been notified by the SSC 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.

1.8 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.

1.9 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 9 to the successful offeror who will be responsible for it IAW FAR 52.245-1. No additional GFP will be provided.

1.10 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.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

A contract will be awarded to the Offeror proposing a solution evaluated, based on the evaluation Factors and Subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The following Factors and Subfactors in Table 1 will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Table 1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Gate Entry Criteria:

Transition Plan

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Factor 1:

Technical

Subfactor 1.1: Sample Problem Subfactor: 1.2 Cybersecurity Support Subfactor: 1.3: Facility Support Subfactor: 1.4: Staffing Matrix

Technical/Risk Rating Technical/Risk Rating Technical/Risk Rating Technical/Risk Rating

Blue Purple Green Yellow Red

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Blue Purple Green Yellow Red

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Blue Purple Green Yellow Red

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Blue Purple Green Yellow Red

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal

Factor 2:

Prior Experience

Performance Confidence Assessment

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Factor 3:

Cost/Price

Total Proposed Price (TPP) $

Government's Most Probable Cost (MPC) Adjustment $

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) $

Reasonable Y/N/TBD/ N/A

Realism Summarize the MPC Adjustments

Unbalanced Pricing Summarize any presence of unbalanced pricing

Factor 4:

Small Business Participation

Acceptable

2.2 Relative Importance

Offerors that are rated acceptable under the Gate Entry Criteria will then qualify for further technical evaluation under Factors 1 through 4.

Relative importance of each Factor and Subfactor are as follows:

• Factor 1, Technical Capability is approximately equal to Factor 2, Prior Experience.

o Within the Technical Factor, Subfactor 1.1 is more important than Subfactor 1.2.

Subfactor 1.3 is more important than Subfactor 1.4.

• Factor 2, Prior Experience, is more important than Factor 3, Cost/Price.

• Factor 3, Cost/Price, is more important than Factor 4, Small Business Participation.

• Factor 4, Small Business Participation is the least important of all Factors.

• All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

2.3 Gate Entry Criteria: Transition Plan

The Government will assess Offeror’s technical and management capability to successfully execute within a 90-calendar day transition period with particular emphasis on timely fulfilling Key and Initial Personnel positions.

• The Government will evaluate Offeror’s Key Personnel identified that addresses:

o Whether currently employed by Offeror o All signed notices of intent that are contingent upon contract award, for those not currently employed by the Offeror o Active secret security clearance levels

• The Government will evaluate Offeror’s Transition Plan in compliance with:

o BOSS PWS 4.1.6 and the “Continuity of Service” FAR Clause 52.237-3.

o The Offeror’s approach to identify and mitigate the potential risk areas noted with the transition during the first 90 days o The Offeror’s commitment to onboarding Key Personnel by Day 1 and Initial

Personnel by Day 15.

The evaluation of the Transition Plan will use the transition rating method of either Acceptable or Unacceptable, as specified in the evaluation table below.

Transition Rating Method Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of transition plan.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet an adequate transition plan.

2.4 Factor 1: Technical Capability

The technical evaluation will Not result in an overall composite Technical/Risk rating for Factor 1, Technical. Technical/risk ratings will be given at the subfactor. There will be four separate Technical/Risk ratings for Factor 1, Technical (4 ratings for each of the Subfactor 1.1, Subfactor 1.2, Subfactor 1.3, and Subfactor 1.4). The Government will consider strengths Offerors note in their proposals and the Government will also consider aspects of the Offeror’s technical proposal that may be advantageous to the Government as strengths. The Government reserves the right to incorporate any evaluated strength(s) into the resulting contract, regardless of whether the Government has conducted discussions regarding subject strength(s). Strengths can include performance or capability exceedances above mandatory threshold (minimum) requirements.

The Government reserves the right to accept or not accept the Offeror’s self-identified strengths.

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 Factor: The term “Technical” as used herein and throughout the document, refers to non-cost Factors and Subfactors other than Prior Experience and Small Business Participation.

2.4.1 Technical/Risk Rating Evaluation

The combined Technical/Risk Rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Government’s Technical requirements within each Subfactor or element and the risk of unsuccessful performance. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Each Technical Subfactor will receive one of the ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated August 20, 2022, and listed in Table 2 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method.

The combined Technical/Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in the Offeror’s proposal.

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Table 3. Technical Risk Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Table 4. Relevant Definitions

Strength Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency 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. See FAR 15.001.

Risk Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. (For firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

2.4.2 Technical Capability Subfactors

2.4.2.2 Subfactor 1.2 Sample Problem

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the Sample Problem scenario with particular emphasis on proposed approach for Facilities, Configuration Control, Staffing, and overall Program Management. response to the questions of the sample problem in the following six areas:

a. Staffing

b. Procurement

c. Facilities

d. Cyber Accreditation

e. Configuration Control

f. Program Management

The Government will evaluate the extent to which Offeror’s response clearly demonstrates Offeror’s approach in the six areas.

2.4.2.3 Subfactor 1.3 Cybersecurity Support

• Cybersecurity Personnel and Positions

a. The Government will assess the Offeror’s approach to retaining key cybersecurity personnel, including retention incentives and overall employee engagement strategies over the period of performance.

b. The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror’s proposed contingency plan to fill cybersecurity vacancies within 45 days, in order to ensure continuity of service during periods of vacancy or turnover.

• Cyber Accreditation Understanding and Compliance with Cybersecurity Requirements

a. The Government will assess how the Offeror demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of highly complex BOSS PWS cyber accreditation processes and packages.

b. The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Offeror’s specific approaches to streamlining processes and obtaining cybersecurity accreditations.

2.4.2.4 Subfactor 1.4 Facility Support

The Government will evaluate Offeror’s approach in their Facility Contingency Plan that outline procedures affecting both interior and exterior BGIF infrastructure in support of the following: power outages, HVAC system failures, physical security breaches, weather events. The Government will evaluate:

a. Feasibility of Offeror’s approach including contingency response timelines that meet acceptable quality standards as stated in the BOSS

PWS.

b. Feasibility of Offeror’s security and safety compliance includes a plan to ensure full OSHA compliance.

c. Offeror’s understanding of the challenges unique to the BGIF as stated in the BOSS PWS and Bidder’s Library, and the feasibility of mitigation approaches to any additional risks identified by the Offeror.

2.4.2.5 Subfactor 1.5 Staffing Matrix

The Government will assess the Offeror’s Staffing Matrix that meets or exceeds the ability to execute the BOSS PWS. The Government will evaluate:

a. The Offeror’s demonstration of overall capability to meet or exceed Government recommended staffing needs and skill mix.

b. The Offeror’s use of the Government provided Staffing Matrix template and submission of the Staffing Matrix as a read/write excel format.

c. The Offeror’s justifications in their proposed Staffing Matrix.

d. Resumes of Key Personnel that demonstrate their Knowledge, Skills, and

Abilities (KSAs)

2.5 Factor 2: Prior Experience

The Government will assess how the Offeror’s contract history demonstrates meaningful data reflecting relevant (to BOSS) and recent (past 5 years) experience in OPIR domain experience, Cybersecurity, Facility Support (24/7 critical missions), and integration of Advanced Technologies. Factor 2 (Prior Experience) will be evaluated using an adjectival rating, according to Table 5 below.

2.5.1 Ratings.

The Prior Experience Factor will receive one of the ratings described in the Prior Experience Rating Scale, excerpted below in Table 5.

Prior Experience Rating Scale

Rating Definitions

Outstanding

Prior Experience demonstrates the same scope, magnitude, and complexities or greater than BOSS acquisition requires.

Prior experience includes OPIR domain experience, Cybersecurity, Facility Support, and integration of Advanced Technologies. Based on the Offeror’s response, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Good

Prior Experience demonstrates essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexities this BOSS acquisition requires.

Prior experience includes OPIR domain experience, Cybersecurity, Facility Support. Based on the Offeror’s response, the Government has expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Acceptable Prior Experience demonstrates similar scope, magnitude, and complexities this BOSS acquisition requires. Prior experience includes relevant Cybersecurity and Facility Support. Based on the Offeror’s response, the Government has some expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Marginal

Prior Experience demonstrates somewhat the same scope, magnitude, and complexities this BOSS acquisition requires.

Prior experience includes, at minimum, either relevant Cybersecurity or Facility Support. Based on the Offeror’s response, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unacceptable

Prior Experience demonstrates none of the same scope, magnitude, and complexities this acquisition requires. Prior experience includes no relevant experience in OPIR domain experience, Cybersecurity, Facility Support, or integration of Advanced Technologies. Based on the Offeror’s response, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Table 5: Prior Experience Rating Scale

2.6 Factor 3: Cost/Price Evaluation

2.6.1 Cost/Price Evaluation.

The Offeror’s Total Proposed Price (TPP) will be evaluated 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 Contract Line-Item Number (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 tradeoff decision.

2.6.2 Total Evaluated Price

The Government will calculate a TEP as shown below:

Table 8. Total Evaluated Price

CLIN

(A)

Title

(B)

Contract Type

(C)

Cost $

(D)

Proposed Fixed Fee or

Incentive Fee

(E)

Total

CLIN

Amount

(D+E)

0001 BGIF Facilities and Tenant Support (labor)

CPIF Gov’t

MPC

D+E

0002 OPIR TAP Lab (labor) CPIF Gov’t

MPC

D+E

0003 ODCs/Material/Training CR $TBD $TBD 0004 Data and Reports (CDRLs) NSP NSP NSP NSP

1001 Option Year 1: BGIF CPIF Gov’t

MPC

D+E

1002 Option Year 1: OPIR TAP Lab CPFF Gov’t

MPC

D+E

1003 Option Year 1: ODCs/Material/Training

CR $TBD $TBD

2001 Option Year 2: BGIF CPIF Gov’t

MPC

D+E

2002 Option Year 2: OPIR TAP Lab CPIF Gov’t

MPC

D+E

2003 Option Year 2:

ODCs/Material/Training

CR $TBD $TBD

3001 Option Year 3: BGIF CPIF Gov’t

MPC

D+E

3002 Option Year 3: OPIR TAP Lab CPIF Gov’t

MPC

D+E

3003 Option Year 3: ODCs/Material/Training

CR $TBD $TBD

4001 6 Month Extension: BGIF CPIF Gov’t

MPC

D+E

4002 6 Month Extension: OPIR TAP Lab

CPIF Gov’t

MPC

D+E

4003 6 Month Extension: ODCs/Material/Training

CR $TBD $TBD

5000 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

RIGHTS

FFP $0 $0

2.6.2.1 Cost Plus Incentive Fee

The Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) CLINs will have a maximum incentive fee of 9% including management/performance incentives and the cost incentive: up to 3.5% in cost incentives and 5.5% in management and performance incentives.

Reference Attachment 4 “Management & Performance Incentive” for more details.

2.6.3 Evaluation Area Details

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

2.6.3.1 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness will be an assessment of whether the price is too high. In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal unawardable. 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, unawardable proposals.

2.6.3.2 Realism

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)). The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for cost realism; cost realism analysis shall be performed on cost-reimbursement CLINs to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. (FAR 15.404- 1(d)(2).

The Offeror’s proposed costs as provided in the Cost/Price Volume will be evaluated via a cost analysis approach. This process involves the Government’s review and evaluation of specific cost elements of the Offeror’s cost/price. 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 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. The cost adjustments will result in the Government’s Most Probable Cost (MPC) that will be incorporated into the TEP calculation for best value consideration. The realism assessment will focus on whether the proposed price is too low. Therefore, all cost adjustments will be upward; there will not be any downward adjustments.

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

and are consistent with the Offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)). Over-proposing of unwanted tasks and associated costs will NOT result in a probable cost adjustment but may result in an unreasonableness determination. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of realism poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.6.3.3 Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to all contract line items)

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing IAW 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. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.6.3.4 Total Proposed Price (TPP)

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for accuracy in calculating the proposed Total Proposed Price (TPP) and for compliance with the instructions for calculating the proposed Total Proposed Price.

2.6.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will adjust the TPP to incorporate the Government’s Most Probable Cost (developed under paragraph 2.5.2) resulting in the Government-calculated TEP. The TEP will be used by the Source Selection Authority in the best value decision process.

2.6.3.6 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.

2.6.3.7 Model Contract Precedence

Data in Volume VI (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 there is an inconsistency, the values in the Model Contract will take precedent and be used in the TEP calculation.

2.7 Factor 4: Small Business Participation

The Offeror demonstrates a small business participation percentage of 30% or more in the Small Business Percentage Calculation spreadsheet as part of Section J Attachment 8 Small Business Participation Commitment Document. This Subfactor will be rated on an acceptable or unacceptable scale as described below in Table 4.

Table 9. Small Business Rating Method Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Small Business objectives are defined as: (1) Submission of an acceptable small business subcontracting plan, if required; (2) Submission of a Small Business Participation Commitment Document that proposes at least 30% based on total contract value; and (3) Submission of evidence of enforceable commitments that cover the entirety of the required 30% or more small business participation.

2.7 Factor 4: Small Business Participation