6 Attachment 6 Evaluation Criteria 20 December 2019.pdf

Evaluation Criteria FA8811-19-R-0002

National Security Space Launch (NSSL)

Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement

FA8811-19-R-0002

Attachment 6

Evaluation Criteria

3 May 2019

Amendment 2: 20 December 2019

1 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will make a responsibility determination in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.104-1 after the evaluation of proposals to determine whether an Offeror is eligible for contract award. The PCO will also consider the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) Commander’s input on progress towards certification of the Offeror’s proposed launch system, among other standards listed in the FAR 9.104-1, to successfully launch National Security Space (NSS) missions.

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 PCO will not award a contract to a contractor included on the Air Force Space Contractor Responsibility Watch List (CRWL) without the approval of the SMC Commander.

2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with FAR subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS), and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016. The Government intends to award two requirement contracts as a result of this competition, using a best value basis. The Offeror determined to be the best value to the Government will be designated the “Requirement 1” provider. The Offeror determined to be the next best value to the Government will be designated as the “Requirement 2” provider. The Offerors will need to be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1, as supplemented by DFARS and AFFARS, and proposals must conform to the solicitation's requirements to be eligible for award. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity in its evaluations, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated independently, on its own merit, according to the evaluation criteria stated in the RFP.

The “Requirement 1” or “Requirement 2” launch service distributions are described in Table 1 in 52.212-4 (z) Ordering, in the model contract.

2.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The following evaluation Factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Table 2.1-1: Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Factors Rating Methodology

T ec h n ic al

Subfactors Combined Technical and Technical Risk Color Rating

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

System

Capability

2 Category A/B

3 Category C

System Risks and Mitigations

2 Past Performance Acceptable Unacceptable

Small Business Participation

Acceptable Unacceptable

4 Price

Total Evaluated Price

Reasonable Not Reasonable

Balanced Unbalanced

2.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), when combined, Factors 1 through 3 are significantly more important than Factor 4, Price. Additionally, Factor 1 Technical is by itself significantly more important than Factor 4 Price. Within Factor 1, Subfactor 1 is equal in importance to Subfactor 2, and Subfactor 2 is equal in importance to Subfactor 3. Subfactor 4 is more important than Subfactor 1, but when combined, any two of Subfactors 1, 2, or 3 are more important than Subfactor 4.

3 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government will award two contracts for the NSSL Phase 2 Launch Service Procurement for “Requirement 1” and “Requirement 2.” The “Requirement 1” or “Requirement 2” launch service distributions will be as described in Table 1 in 52.212-4 (z) Ordering, in the model contract.

4 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

The Government will evaluate, IAW this attachment, information the Offeror provides IAW Attachment 5, Instructions to Offerors (ITO), with the exception of the executive summary.

Proposals must conform to this Request for Proposal (RFP). Any submitted proposal that does not adhere to the requirements in this RFP may be eliminated from the competition and ineligible for award.

4.1 DISCUSSIONS

The Government anticipates entering into discussions after it makes a competitive range determination of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria (see FAR 15.306(c)). Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) shall be requested for evaluation from all Offerors who remain in the competitive range. The Government reserves the right to record audio telecommunications with the Offerors during the source selection. Any proposal updates shall be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified here.

4.2 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS

Offerors are required to meet or exceed all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, small business subcontracting plan, organizational conflict of interest analysis results, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as Factors or Subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to cross-reference between volumes and sections of volumes to support proposal evaluation.

5 COMPETITIVE RANGE

In accordance with FAR 15.306, an Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range at any time during discussions if the Offeror is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated.

This elimination can occur whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or whether or not the Offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit a proposal revision.

6 EVALUATION OF FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

6.1 EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL SUBFACTORS

Each Technical Subfactor will receive a combined Technical/Risk rating. The combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The combined Technical/Risk evaluation utilizes the combined Technical/Risk ratings listed in Table 6.2-1 and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 6.2-2.

The Government will assign a combined Technical/Risk rating, as described in Table 6.2-1 below, for all Factor 1 Subfactors, as identified in Table 2.1-1. The Government may assign strengths, significant strengths, and/or deficiencies to the Offeror’s proposal. Strengths, significant strengths, deficiencies, weakness, and significant weakness are defined as follows:

A “strength” is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

A "significant strength" is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be very advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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.

A “weakness” is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A “significant weakness” is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

To be eligible for award, Offerors must receive combined Technical/Risk ratings of Marginal, Acceptable, Good, or Outstanding for all Subfactors.

6.2 RATINGS

Each Technical Subfactor, as identified in Table 2.1-1, will receive one of the combined Technical/Risk ratings described in Table 6.2-1 below:

Table 6.2-1: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

BLUE OUTSTANDING

1. Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, and

2. Proposal contains a significant strength or multiple strengths/significant strengths, and

3. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

PURPLE GOOD

1. Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements, and either

a. Proposal contains at least one significant strength, or multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, or

b. Proposal contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low

GREEN ACCEPTABLE

1. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW MARGINAL

1. Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED UNACCEPTABLE

1. Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

3. Proposal is unawardable.

The combined Technical/Risk Rating for Technical Subfactors, as identified in Table 2.1-1, will use the risk descriptions described in Table 6.2.2 below.

Table 6.2-2: Technical Risk Descriptions

Adjectival Rating Description

LOW

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring or similar activities 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 or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring or similar activities will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

HIGH

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses/ significant weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring or similar activities.

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

6.3 SUBFACTOR 1: SYSTEM CAPABILITY

6.3.1 MASS-TO-ORBIT

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed mass-to-orbit capability meets or exceeds Government requirements and whether the methodology and justification supporting the proposed mass-to-orbit capability is technically sound.

6.3.2 ORBITAL PARAMETER ACCURACY

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed orbital parameter accuracy for the primary launch vehicle configuration for each reference orbit meets or exceeds Government requirements and whether the methodology and justification supporting proposed orbital parameter accuracy is technically sound.

6.3.3 MISSION ASSURANCE

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed mission assurance approach, integration of mission assurance products, and subcontractor mission assurance approach are technically sound.

6.4 SUBFACTOR 2: CATEGORY A/B

6.4.1 CATEGORY A/B SAMPLE MISSIONS

6.4.1.1 Category B LEO

LEO Concept of Operations (CONOPS)

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed Launch Operations CONOPS is technically sound.

6.4.1.2 Category B Molniya

Molniya Mission Profile

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed Molniya mission profile is technically sound.

6.4.2 CATEGORY A/B SYSTEM READINESS

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Payload Envelope Category A/B system development, Non-Recurring Design Validation (NRDV) completion and certification activities to support Phase 2 ILC dates. If the Offeror is proposing one system that will meet both Category A/B and Category C requirements, the Government will still evaluate its readiness in each Category separately. The System Readiness will be based on the proposed launch system(s).

Secondary launch systems will not be considered a viable risk mitigation strategy for the proposed launch system readiness. When the Government requests updated Launch System Maturity Assessment Process (LSMAP) reports after proposal submission, the additional reports will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s Payload Envelope Category A/B system development, NRDV completion and certification activities to support Phase 2 ILC dates as well as Offeror’s progress against planned NRDV activities.

6.4.2.1 Category A/B System Technical Assessment

The Government will consider the LSMAP Technical assessment and evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s plans to complete NRDV for its Category A/B system are technically sound.

6.4.2.2 Category A/B System Eastern Range Schedule Assessment

The Government will consider the LSMAP schedule assessments and evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s plans to complete NRDV activities to meet the following Initial Launch Capability (ILC) requirements are technically sound:

1. A mission with an Initial Launch Capability (ILC) of 1 April 2022 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (AFS) or Kennedy Space Center; and

2. A mission requiring vertical integration with an ILC of 1 July 2022 from Cape Canaveral AFS or Kennedy Space Center.

6.4.2.3 Category A/B System Western Range Schedule Assessment

The Government will consider the LSMAP schedule assessment and evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s plan to complete NRDV activities to meet the ILC requirements for a mission with an ILC of 1 August 2025 from Vandenberg AFB is technically sound.

6.5 SUBFACTOR 3: CATEGORY C

6.5.1 CATEGORY C SAMPLE MISSIONS

6.5.1.1 Category C GEO 2

GEO 2 Mission Profile

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach for the GEO 2 mission profile is technically sound.

GEO 2 Mission Support Equipment (MSE) Accommodations

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to providing GEO 2 MSE Accommodations is technically sound.

6.5.1.2 Category C Polar 2

Polar 2 Mission Profile

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed Polar 2 mission profile is technically sound.

Polar 2 Spot Cooling

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed Polar 2 spot cooling approach is technically sound.

Polar 2 A-Frame Mechanical Interfaces

The Government will evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s proposed approach to interface with A-Frame mechanisms is technically sound.

6.5.2 CATEGORY C SYSTEM READINESS

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Payload Envelope Category C system development, NRDV completion, and certification activities to support Phase 2 ILC dates. If the Offeror is proposing one system that will meet or exceed both Category A/B and Category C reference orbit requirements, the Government will still evaluate its readiness in each Category separately.

When the Government requests updated LSMAP reports after proposal submission, the additional reports will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s Payload Envelope Category C system development, NRDV completion, and certification activities to support Phase 2 ILC dates as well as Offeror’s progress against planned NRDV activities.

6.5.2.1 Category C System Technical Assessment

The Government will consider the LSMAP Technical assessment and evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s plan to complete NRDV for its Category C system are technically sound.

6.5.2.2 Category C System Eastern Range Schedule Assessment

The Government will consider the LSMAP schedule assessment and evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s plan to complete NRDV activities for a mission with an ILC of 1 January 2026 from Cape Canaveral AFS or Kennedy Space Center is technically sound.

6.5.2.3 Category C System Western Range Schedule Assessment

The Government will consider the LSMAP schedule assessment and evaluate whether, and the extent to which, the Offeror’s plan to complete NRDV activities for a mission with an ILC of 1 September 2025 from Vandenberg AFB is technically sound.

6.6 SUBFACTOR 4: SYSTEM RISKS AND MITIGATIONS

The Government will evaluate how the technical risks may affect the ability of the launch system to meet requirements. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of identified mitigation plans and associated uncertainties. Secondary launch systems will not be considered a viable risk mitigation strategy for the proposed launch system.

7 EVALUATION OF FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

7.1 PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror’s past performance efforts will be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality.

The combined past performance evaluation results in one Past Performance Rating IAW Table 7-

2. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of Acceptable to be eligible for award.

7.2 EVALUATION PROCESS

The past performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government will obtain Past Performance information from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). Additionally, the Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from the following:

Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, and commercial sources.

7.3 RECENCY EVALUATION

Recent efforts must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of proposal submission. Past performance information that does not meet this definition will not be evaluated. In the overall past performance evaluation, more recent past performance information will be more impactful than less recent past performance information.

7.4 RELEVANCY EVALUATION

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the past performance efforts relate to missions launched to NSS reference orbits. For each recent past performance effort reviewed, consideration will be given to the extent to which the scope, magnitude, and complexity is similar to missions to NSS reference orbits. This evaluation will result in relevancy assessment ratings for each mission. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed to be completed by the prime, subcontractor, or teaming partner. Past performance information obtained from applicable sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions in Table 7-1 when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

Table 7-1: Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

VERY RELEVANT

Past or ongoing efforts that involved a single or multi-mission launch service for the launch service provider, involving essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity as the NSS reference orbits using the proposed launch system(s).

RELEVANT

Past or ongoing efforts that involved a single or multi-mission launch service for other Government or commercial missions as the launch service provider, involving either similar scope, magnitude, and complexity as that required to meet the NSS reference orbits using the proposed launch system or essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity as the NSS reference orbits using an other than proposed launch system.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Past or ongoing efforts that involved a single or multi-mission launch service for other Government or commercial missions as the launch service provider or its subcontractor, involving some of the scope, magnitude, and complexity as that required to meet the NSS reference orbits.

NOT RELEVANT

Past or ongoing efforts that involved a single or multi-mission launch service for other Government or commercial missions as the launch service provider or its subcontractor, involving little or none of the scope, magnitude, and complexity as that required to meet the NSS reference orbits.

7.5 QUALITY ASSESSMENT

The Government will assess the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. The quality of the work performed will be assessed for performance and schedule. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the evaluation will also consider the extent to which, the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that results in an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system (e.g., PPIRS). For identified adverse information, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the adverse information, mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in any sustained improvements.

7.6 PAST PERFORMANCE RATING

The past performance rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The evaluation will result in either an acceptable or unacceptable rating IAW Table 7.2.

Table 7-2: Past Performance Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

UNACCEPTABLE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

8 EVALUATION OF FACTOR 3: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

8.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY OF SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The Small Business Participation Factor evaluation will result in Offerors receiving a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as depicted in Table 8-1. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) focuses on the Offeror’s performance in the utilization of small business concerns and its evaluation will be included within the rating of the Small Business Participation Factor. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall address the SBPCD. Offerors must receive a Small Business Participation Factor rating of Acceptable to be eligible for award.

Table 8-1: Small Business Factor Rating

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

8.2 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be assessed IAW FAR 19.704 and must reflect the level of small business participation commitment specified in the SBPCD.

The SBPCD is a separate document from the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required by FAR subpart 19.7. The Government will evaluate the SBPCD as measured against Total Launch Service (Basic Launch Service plus Mission Unique Services). Offerors must meet the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) level of small business participation, which is an annual average of 4% for launch services.

9 EVALUATION OF FACTOR 4: PRICE

The Offeror’s pricing will be evaluated for Reasonableness and Unbalanced pricing. Proposals that are determined to be unreasonable are not awardable. Proposals that are determined to contain unbalanced pricing are not awardable. In the reasonableness evaluation, the Government may use data external to the Offeror’s proposal, such as, but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial data.

Pricing that will be evaluated for Reasonableness and Unbalanced pricing include (Reference Attachment 5 Instructions to Offerors, Paragraphs 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3):

1. Basic launch service price by reference orbit, configuration, and mass-to-orbit by fiscal year

2. Mission Acceleration by fiscal year for 3, 6, 9, or 12 month acceleration

3. Mission Unique Services by fiscal year

4. Launch Service Support (LSS) and Fleet Surveillance (FS) price by contract year

5. Quick Reaction and Anomaly Resolution and Special Studies composite hourly rates as needed

6. Early Integration Studies (EIS) by complexity (standard, complex, or simple/reflight) as needed

9.1 REASONABLENESS

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness is an assessment of whether the price is too high. In accordance with FAR 31.201-3(a) the price is reasonable, if, in its nature and amount, does not exceed that amount which would be paid by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Reasonableness of an Offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated using one or more analysis techniques, as identified in FAR 15.404-1. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. 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. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness, the Offeror shall be required to submit additional data other than certified cost or pricing data.

9.2 UNBALANCED PRICING

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more price inputs in the pricing tables 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.

9.3 RESERVED

9.4 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

For source selection evaluation purposes and as an input for the best value tradeoff decision process, the TEP will be determined using the weighted sum of the following items over the PoP:

a) The Basic Launch Service Price for each fiscal year, identified by reference orbit and mass-to-orbit, plus,

b) The Acceleration price applied twice per year for fiscal years 2-5, plus,

c) For each fiscal year, for each mission, the associated Mission Unique Services, plus,

d) The total Rental Equivalency for Government Property Use amount, plus,

e) The annual LSS price by order year, plus,

f) The annual non-NSS Fleet Surveillance price by order year based on the single mission price multiplied by 5 non-NSS missions, plus

g) The dollarized value for Quick Reaction, and Anomaly Resolution, and Special Studies based upon multiplying 100,000 hours by the proposed composite rate, plus,

h) For specific “next year” non-NRO missions, EIS, based upon corresponding complexity of the EIS (standard, complex, or simple/reflight).

i) Specific Study Components priced individually for all order years.

TEP will be calculated using the weighted sum of items a through i above. This is further detailed in the notional pricing table in the Bidder’s library. The weightings included in the notional pricing table are examples only. The Government will apply different weightings during the source selection that are representative of the expected requirements in the ordering period.

These weightings will be generated prior to the receipt of proposals.

The Government provided Attachment 8, NSSL Phase 2 Pricing Tables will not automatically calculate the TEP from the inputs entered by the Offeror. The Government will provide the Offeror’s TEP at time of Competitive Range Determination as well at request for Final Proposal Revisions.

Note that Government acceptance of proposed TEP does not mean the Offeror’s proposed prices are reasonable and not unbalanced. The reasonableness and unbalanced pricing is a different evaluation, which involves the evaluation of every price in the NSSL Phase 2 Attachment 8 Pricing Tables.