Attachment 19 LISC OMS Section M_Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FA8811-13-R-0001

Launch and Test Range System (LTRS)

Integrated Support Contract (LISC)

SECTION M

Attachment 19: Evaluation Factors for Award

20 March 2013

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Table of Contents

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1 Mandatory Requirement

1.2 Responsibility

2.0 General Evaluation Information

2.1 Number of Contracts to Be Awarded

2.2 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

3.0 Source Selection Matrix

4.0 RESERVED

5.0 Factor 1 - Technical Capability

5.1 RESERVED

5.2 Technical Subfactors

5.2.1 Subfactor 1: Operations

5.2.2 Subfactor 2: Maintenance and Sustainment

5.2.3 Subfactor 3: Program Management and Systems Engineering

6.0 Factor 2 – Technical Risk

7.0 Factor 3 – Past Performance

8.0 Factor 3 – Price

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS). The Government intends to award a contract to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, as supplemented, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. While the Government 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 process.

The Government intends to conduct discussions with Offerors after establishing a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria.

However, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions if it is in the best interest of the Government. Contract Award will be made based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. Any proposal with one or more “unacceptable” Technical Capability ratings for any technical subfactor will be unawardable. Any proposal with one or more “high” Technical Risk ratings for any technical subfactor will be unawardable. Any proposal with an “unacceptable” Past Performance rating will be unawardable. Price proposals that are not reasonable or are unbalanced, or exceed the ceiling price values by Period of Performance as identified in Section L, Table 2, will render a proposal unawardable and may result in exclusion from the competitive range. Trade-offs involving the Technical Capability factor and Past Performance factor are not permitted. Trade-offs between the Price factor and Technical Risk factor are permitted. The Price Factor evaluation will yield a Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which is determined by a weighted calculation.

This weighting ensures that the implementation of efficiencies results in the realization of earlier cost reductions. The TEP will also include the sum of costs associated with providing the Government Asserted Minimum Rights for data the Offeror asserts as less than those asserted in column 3 of Table 1 and column 3 of Table 3 in Attachment 13.

Out of those proposals that are determined to be awardable based on the evaluation of the Technical Capability, Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price factors, the Government will perform a trade-off between the Technical Risk and TEP to determine the best value to the Government. The Government may award to an Offeror whose proposal contains one or more “moderate” Technical Risk subfactor ratings.

1.1 Mandatory Requirement

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications as required in Section K, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of this solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.2 Responsibility

No award shall 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.

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2.0 General Evaluation Information

2.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation.

However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

2.2 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The use of GFP will not be a consideration during evaluation, because the GFP listed in Attachment 12 to this solicitation is equally available to all Offerors. No request for additional GFP will be entertained.

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

3.0 Source Selection Matrix

The matrix shown in Table 1 below summarizes the evaluation factors and subfactors, and the approach that will be used to determine best value.

Technical Capability and Past Performance factors and subfactors will be evaluated for acceptability only. Technical Risk will be evaluated at the subfactor level as either “Low,” “Moderate,” or “High”. Technical Subfactor 1, Operations, and Technical Subfactor 2, Maintenance and Sustainment, are of equal importance and each is individually more important than Technical Subfactor 3, Program Management and Systems Engineering. Among those Offerors rated acceptable in both the Technical Capability and Past Performance factors, a tradeoff will be made between Technical Risk and Total Evaluated Price to determine award based on which offer represents the best value to the Government. Total Evaluated Price is slightly more important than Technical Risk.

Evaluation Factors

Technical Subfactors

Operations Maintenance and Sustainment

Program Management and

Systems Engineering

Technical Capability

Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

Technical Risk

Low Low Low

Moderate Moderate Moderate

High High High

Past Performance

Acceptable Unacceptable

Price

Total Evaluated Price $ Reasonable: Y/N

Unbalanced Pricing: Y/N Ceiling Compliance: Y/N

Table 1: Evaluation Matrix

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

4.0 RESERVED (to align numbering of section 5.0 with Section L)

5.0 Factor 1 – Technical Capability

The purpose of the Technical Capability Factor is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will satisfy the Government’s requirements related to the evaluation criteria.

Each technical subfactor will receive an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” rating. Any proposal with one or more “unacceptable” Technical Capability ratings for any technical subfactor will be unawardable. In accordance with Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, the determination of this rating is based on a Government assessment of whether the proposed approach clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Based on this evaluation, the Government will apply one of the ratings listed in Table 2 below for each technical subfactor. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled into an overall rating for the Technical Capability Factor.

Table 2: Technical Capability Ratings

5.1 RESERVED

5.2 Technical Subfactors

5.2.1 Subfactor 1: Operations

The criteria in this subfactor will be applied to evaluate the acceptability and risk of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach to performing Range Operations as defined in paragraphs 5.0 and 6.0.

5.2.1.1 Planning Phase. Process for UDS documentation explains the flow of the specific products to be generated in response to Range user programs.

Government coordination and critical decision points are included in the process along with data required to support committing Range resources. The proposed staffing in the Process BOE is sufficient to execute the work described in this criterion and is consistent with the corresponding BOEs in Section L, Attachment TC1.

5.2.1.2 Operations Scenario.

a. Schedule properly identifies and manages key processes and limiting factors across the generation, execution and recovery phases of each launch to meet the launch dates for both missions in the scenario.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

b. Instrumentation Coverage Plan (ICP) for each mission includes required and mandatory Range instrumentation and communication assets and supports each mission in the scenario for the radar, telemetry, command, optics, and communications subsystems.

c. Approach to managing key activities provides properly configured and checked out Range instrumentation and communication assets that support both missions of the scenario. The proposed staffing in the Process BOE is sufficient to execute the work described in this criterion and is consistent with the corresponding BOEs in Section L, Attachment TC1.

d. Timeline for critical countdown sequence activities incorporates applicable constraints and is sufficient to successfully execute the scenario’s Delta IV launch.

e. Approach to managing day of launch activities coordinates launch team communications, execution of operations procedures at instrumentation sites, and anomaly response in order to support a successful Delta IV launch (per the scenario). The proposed staffing in the Process BOE is sufficient to successfully conduct day of launch activities and is consistent with the corresponding BOEs in Section L, Attachment TC1.

5.2.1.3 Recovery Phase. Process to assess the actual performance of Range instrumentation compares actual performance of a given mission to the anticipated operation in that mission’s ICP and reports accurate results to the Government in response to a nominal launch, mishap investigations, and a catastrophic launch event.

5.2.1.4 Offeror demonstrates that each, if any, efficiency proposed in this subfactor will achieve the proposed labor hour reductions contained in the Basis of Estimates (BOEs) and is traceable to the BOEs while meeting the requirements of the

PWS.

5.2.2 Subfactor 2: Maintenance and Sustainment

The criteria in this subfactor will be applied to evaluate the acceptability and risk of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach to performing Maintenance and Sustainment as defined in paragraphs 5.0 and 6.0.

5.2.2.1 Offeror’s organization, processes, and external interfaces for LTRS organizational and depot-level maintenance enable the timely identification, response to, reporting, tracking, and resolution of maintenance issues with minimal impact to Range operations. The processes clearly map to the organizational structure.

5.2.2.2 Maintenance work planning approach successfully executes maintenance activities while making efficient use of opportunities created by a dynamic and constrained scheduling environment. The proposed staffing in the Process BOE is sufficient to successfully execute the maintenance work planning

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

approach and is consistent with the corresponding BOEs in Section L, Attachment TC1.

5.2.2.3 Offeror’s process a) responds to Emergency Depot Level Maintenance (EDLM) events to restore Range assets to operational capability within PWS-prescribed response times and b) offers alternative methods of restoring operational capability to continue launch operations when the asset cannot be restored.

The proposed staffing in the Process BOE is sufficient to successfully execute the Emergency Depot Level Maintenance process and is consistent with the corresponding BOEs in Section L, Attachment TC1.

5.2.2.4 Public-Private Partnering Plan:

a. Includes a signed Strategic Partnering Agreement (SPA), draft Partnering Agreement (PA), and a draft Implementation Agreement (IA) (or equivalent agreements) coordinated with Ogden Air Logistics Center (OO-ALC) or other organic depot(s) the Offeror intends to utilize.

b. Provides for the execution and implementation of the PA and IA (or equivalent agreements) within 120 days of ATP, the transition of at least 15% of depot maintenance workload to organic depots NLT 30 September 2014, and transitions at least 17% of depot maintenance workload to organic depots NLT 30 September 2017.

5.2.2.5 Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability (RMA) process for the LTRS is consistent with the PWS and LTRS RMA Guide. The RMA process provides analysis, trending, and reporting that results in contractor-provided options for the Government to reduce costs associated with aging Range equipment within Government funding constraints. The proposed staffing in the Process BOE is sufficient to successfully execute the RMA process and is consistent with the corresponding BOEs in Section L, Attachment TC1.

5.2.2.6 Logistics/Supply Chain strategy integrates supply for the LTRS at both the organizational supply and wholesale inventory control levels. The strategy is in compliance with the CFO Act and AFMAN 23-110. The strategy utilizes the Standard Base Supply System (SBSS), IMDS, AFEMS, and the Offeror’s inventory data management system to provide real time total asset visibility, documentation, and reporting as attainable given the limitations of the Government system. The proposed staffing in the Process BOE is sufficient to successfully execute the Logistics/Supply Chain Management process and is consistent with the corresponding BOEs in Section L, Attachment TC1.

5.2.2.7 Offeror demonstrates that each, if any, efficiency proposed in this subfactor will achieve the proposed labor hour reductions contained in the Basis of Estimates (BOEs) and is traceable to the BOEs while meeting the requirements of the

PWS.

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

5.2.3 Subfactor 3: Program Management and Systems Engineering The criteria in this subfactor will be applied to evaluate the acceptability and risk of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach to performing Program Management and Systems Engineering as defined in paragraphs 5.0 and 6.0.

5.2.3.1 Management approach enables the planning, organizing, managing, and coordinating of resources to successfully execute LISC OM&S PWS requirements.

a. Offeror proposes sufficient data rights to execute the Offeror’s proposal in

Volume V Attachment 13

5.2.3.2 Management approach is consistent with FAR 22.1008-2 and all applicable Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) and successfully manages both union and non-union labor over the life of the contract.

5.2.3.3 Staffing:

a. BOEs (other than Technical Support and Organic Depot Support BOEs) contain sufficient staffing levels with an appropriate skill mix to successfully execute the PWS requirements.

b. Technical Support and Organic Depot Support BOEs contain an appropriate skill mix for the scenarios provided in Section L paragraphs 8.1.5 and 8.1.6.

c. BOEs are traceable to the PWS requirements and Level 3 of the CWBS.

5.2.3.4 Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation Plan meet the mandatory threshold of 23% of contract value subcontracted at the first tier subcontract level to small businesses. In order to meet this requirement, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan must also comply with

FAR 52.219-9.

5.2.3.5 Range Systems Engineering approach:

a. Results in solutions for LTRS baseline changes that account for impacts to OM&S and modifications (ongoing or planned) through rigorous application of the Range Systems Engineering disciplines as described in the LTRS Systems Engineering Plan (SEP). The proposed staffing in the Process BOE is sufficient to successfully execute Systems Engineering processes and is consistent with the corresponding BOEs in Section L, Attachment

TC1.

b. Maintains configuration control and prevents unauthorized changes to the operational configuration baseline. The proposed staffing in the Process BOE is sufficient to successfully execute the configuration control process and is consistent with the corresponding BOEs in Section L, Attachment

TC1.

5.2.3.6 Configuration Scenario:

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

a. Process identifies all of the potential system, subsystem(s) and lower requirements affected by both the vendor software and the LTRS customized network management software. In addition, the process identifies any potential risks, along with mitigation measures.

b. Software configuration management approach identifies and controls the changes to both software and software documentation.

c. Implementation approach ensures all documentation (T.O., user manuals, work cards, checklists, etc.), software repositories, and installed software are methodically updated without potential side effects.

5.2.3.7 Information Assurance (IA) process for physical IA management of mission communications a) secures external connections to the Eastern and Western Ranges and b) identifies current and emerging threats and vulnerabilities. The proposed staffing in the Process BOE is sufficient to successfully execute the Information Assurance process and is consistent with the corresponding BOEs in Section L, Attachment TC1.

5.2.3.8 LISC Information Management Enterprise System (LIMES) provides a single repository for all data (current and future) required for and generated by Range OM&S activities. Consistent with PWS requirements, LIMES provides access to the data for Government military, civilian, and support contractor personnel.

5.2.3.9 Transition Plan:

a. Provides for successful transition from the three legacy contracts to the Offeror’s organization, systems, processes, and procedures with minimal impact, delay, or disruption to operations, maintenance, or sustainment activities.

b. Demonstrates that the Offeror will be fully capable of performing the entire PWS within 90 days from transition start.

c. Staffs key personnel at contract start and throughout the transition period.

d. Provides for staffing levels sufficient to successfully execute the entire PWS within 90 days from transition start.

e. Assumes full accountability of all GFP inventory immediately upon the conclusion of the 90-day transition period.

f. Identifies risks associated with the transition. Mitigation plans are appropriately mapped to the transition timeline.

g. Includes signed Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs), effective day 1 of transition, with the following associate contractors:

i. Computer Sciences Raytheon (CSR) (ERTS)

ii. InDyne, Inc. (WROCI)

iii. ITT Exelis, Inc. (SLRSC)

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

5.2.3.10 Offeror demonstrates that each, if any, efficiency proposed in this subfactor will achieve the proposed labor hour reductions contained in the Basis of Estimates (BOEs) and is traceable to the BOEs while meeting the requirements of the

PWS.

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

6.0 Factor 2 – Technical Risk

The purpose of the Technical Risk Factor is to assess the risk of the proposed technical approach. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For each criteria within the Technical Capability subfactors, the Government may assign weaknesses or significant weaknesses.

Identification of risk will result in either a weakness or significant weakness. A “weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Based on the identification of, absence of, or combination of weaknesses or significant weaknesses, a Technical Risk rating will be assigned for each of the subfactors using the ratings listed in Table 3. Each subfactor will receive a “Low,” ”Moderate,” or “High” risk rating. A Significant Weakness will not necessarily generate a “high” risk rating.

Subfactor ratings will not be rolled into an overall rating for the Technical Risk Factor.

Rating Description Low Has 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 Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High 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.

Table 3: Technical Risk Ratings

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

7.0 Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the Small Business requirements of the LISC OM&S contract.

(1) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers the extent to which the Offeror attained applicable goals for small business participation in the performance of contracts that required subcontracting plans (See 15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)(G)(ii)). An acceptable/unacceptable rating will be based on the past performance of the prime Offeror in achieving small business participation goals on recent and relevant contracts.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government will use information obtained from sources available to the Government, to include SF294/295s and Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS). If necessary, the Government will review applicable CPARs, Award Fee assessments, and/or interview Government personnel in order to fully assess this criterion.

(i) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance 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 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The past performance narratives provided in the Offerors’ proposals will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the citation will only be deemed relevant if the conditions in Table 4 are met. Table 4 outlines the criteria to be used for evaluating contract relevance with respect to Small Business participation.

Rating Definition

RELEVANT 1) The contracted scope was valued at $10 million or more annually and primarily involved engineering services, operations, maintenance, or sustainment activities;

2) The work cited was performed under a Government contract;

3) The present/past performance contract cited required a subcontracting plan; AND

4) The present/past performance contract cited included a small business participation goal or requirement.

NOT RELEVANT Does not meet the above definition of “RELEVANT.”

Table 4: Relevancy Rating Definitions

(iii) Small Business (SB) Participation Performance Assessment

For each recent and relevant citation, the Government will assess whether or not the Offeror demonstrated reasonable efforts toward meeting the Small Business goals for that citation. In the event that goals were not met, the Government will consider extenuating circumstances that contributed to the shortfall.

(2) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the recency, relevancy, and Small Business Participation Performance assessments of the contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive a past performance evaluation rating of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.”

(i) If the Government determines that the Offeror’s record of past performance demonstrates reasonable efforts toward meeting its SB goals, then an “Acceptable” rating will be assigned

(ii) If the Government determines that the Offeror’s record of past performance does not demonstrate a commitment to meeting its SB goals, then an “Unacceptable” rating will be assigned

Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful performance evaluation rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have “Unknown” past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

8.0 Factor 4 – Price

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Unbalanced Pricing, and Ceiling Compliance. See paragraphs a.-d. below. Total Evaluated Price will be calculated in accordance with paragraph e. below.

a. Reasonableness:

i. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business [reference FAR 31.201-3(a)].

ii. For all CLINs proposed, the Government will use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404 to determine whether an Offeror’s price is reasonable.

b. For Cost Type efforts (Organic Depot Support, Technical Support, and Interim Contractor Support), in addition to the price analysis discussed above, the Government will use one or more of the cost analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404 to support cost and price reasonableness. The rates for these efforts will not be included in the Government’s computation of the Total Evaluated Price as described in paragraph e. below and will only be used to provide the Estimated Cost per Hour and Fixed Fee per Hour rates for Special Contract Requirements H008, H009, and H010.

c. Unbalanced Pricing (reference FAR 15.404-1(g)):

i. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items. CLIN prices will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each Offeror’s response to the CLIN structure in Section B. An Offeror whose proposal is determined to be unbalanced may be determined unawardable if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

ii. For each Period of Performance (PoP), the Government will total all proposed FPIF CLIN ceiling prices. Totals (sum of all FPIF CLINs) may not increase by more than 1.5% from one PoP to the next. Proposals that contain totals that increase by more than 1.5% from one PoP to the next will be rejected.

d. Ceiling Compliance: For each Period of Performance (PoP), the Government will total all proposed FPIF CLIN ceiling prices for the LISC OM&S contract. To be ceiling compliant:

i. The ceiling price for CLIN 1400 shall not exceed $7,480,000

ii. The sum of ceiling prices for CLINs xx01 and xx03-xx08 for each PoP shall not exceed the Non-Depot 3400 line for that respective PoP from Section L, Table 2

SECTION M, ATTACHMENT 19: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

iii. The sum of ceiling prices for CLINs xx01-xx08 for each PoP shall not exceed the Total 3400 line for that respective PoP from Section L, Table 2

Proposals that are not ceiling compliant will be deemed unawardable. This ceiling compliance evaluation is illustrated below in Table 5.

Table 5: Ceiling Price Compliance

e. Total Evaluated Price:

i. For source selection evaluation purposes only, the Government’s Total Evaluated Price will be determined as follows for each proposal:

1. Calculate the totals for only FPIF CLINs (including CLIN 1400, Phase-In, excluding all CR CLINs) by adding all proposed FPIF CLIN ceiling prices IAW Section L, 8.1.2, and Table 7: CLIN Pricing. Place the whole dollar values in Table 6, Row 1.

2. Multiply the totals for FPIF CLINs (row 1) by their respective weightings (row

2) to calculate the weighted amounts IAW Table 6: Total Evaluated Price.

Place the product (rounded up to the nearest whole dollar) in Table 6, Row 3.

3. Place the sum of the “Data Rights Total” value from the last row of column 5 Table 1 and from the last row of column 5 Table 3 in Attachment 13 of Volume V into the Table 6, row 3 in the Data Rights Total column below.

a. Each Data Rights cost from Tables 1 & 3 of Attachment 13 will be evaluated for Reasonableness.

4. Total all weighted amounts in Table 6, Row 3, and the Data Rights Total value in Table 6, Row 3 to obtain the Total Evaluated Price.

Table 6: Total Evaluated Price

($ in Millions) FY14

Phase-In 3400 7.48

CLIN 1400

ceiling price

FYxx Phase-In 3400 $ from Section L, Table 2 (e.g., FY14: $7,480,000)

Non-Depot 3400 77.58 Sum of ceiling prices for CLINs xx01, xx03-xx08

FYxx Non-Depot 3400 $ from Section L, Table 2 (e.g., FY14: $77,580,000)

Total 3400 183.00 Sum of ceiling prices for CLINs xx01-xx08

FYxx Total 3400 $ from Section L, Table 2 (e.g., FY14: $183,000,000)

Ceiling Compliance Criteria (FYxx) from Section L, Table 2

Row Year

CLINs 14xx

(incl. 1400)

CLINs

15xx

CLINs

16xx

CLINs

17xx

CLINs

18xx

CLINs

19xx

CLINs

20xx

CLINs

21xx

CLINs

22xx

CLINs

23xx

Data Rights

Total Totals

Proposed Ceiling Prices

(All FPIF, including Phase‐In)

2 Weighting 5.00% 26.00% 17.00% 13.00% 11.00% 8.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 100.00%

3 Weighted Amount