09_20190318_MOSSAIC_Atch09_Sec_M_RevA.pdf

SECTION J, ATCH 09, SECTION M Rev. A

SOLICITATION NO: FA8823-19-R-0005 pg. 1

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR

MAINTENANCE OF SPACE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

INTEGRATED CAPABILITIES (MOSSAIC)

CONTRACT

18 MARCH 2019

SOLICITATION NO.: FA8823-19-R-0005

ATTACHMENT 09

Ground Based Space Surveillance (GBSS) Division

Space Superiority Systems Directorate

SMC/SYG

1050 East Stewart Ave.

Peterson AFB, CO 80914

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D: Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD Contractors only;

administrative/operational use; 31 May 2018. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the SMC/SYGI, 1050 E. Stewart Ave., STE 2025, Peterson AFB, CO 80914.

WARNING: This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, USC, Sec 2751, et. seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, Title 50, USC., App. 2401, et. seq. Violations of these export laws are subject to severe criminal penalties. Dissemination of this document is controlled under DoD Directive 5230.25.

DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

Solicitation No: FA8823-19-R-0005 pg. 2

CHANGE CONTROL SUMMARY

Revision (Rev). A revision should be used to consolidate all changes into a new basic document with a new basic date. It should be used to clean up the document when it begins to become confusing with too many changes. It is the Data Managers (DM) decision when to revise the document. Number the revision and include a summary of the revisions in the change table. DM will remove all change bars when the document is revised since the revised document takes all previous changes into account. Do not remove changes from the change table when the document is revised since they may lend important historical value.

Version (Ver). A change that is administrative in nature does not require the document to be re-staffed.

Changes that remove or add items periodically assessed or affect items assessed in frequency of assessment or thresholds must be re-staffed for approval. Consolidate changes when possible. Include a summary of the changes incorporated in the change table. Ensure change bars have been inserted after initial release.

Rev./Ver. Eff. Date Description

1.0 31 May 18 First draft for Industry review and comments.

1.1 29 Jun 18 Updated as a result of Industry comments and internal reviews.

Updated with comments from SAW review.

1.2 20 Jul 18 Updated Paragraph 1.1.7

2.0 18 Sep 18 Updated based on 3-ltr SRB coordination

2.1 19 Sep 18 Updated Subfactor 2 criteria.

3.0 19 Oct 18 Updated based on industry comments and 3-ltr review.

3.1 2 Nov 18 Moved Professional Employee Compensation to Contracts Volume;

changed Transition from CPFF to CR; revised realism instructions.

4.0 11 Dec 18 Incorporated SRB comments.

4.1 17 Jan 19 New Solicitation Number.

Updated CLIN info in para. 4.1.

4.2 30 Jan 19 Updated SF 5 Criterion as result of Jan ’19 One-on-One Feedback.

4.3 19 Feb 19 Accepted all changes for draft RFP release to Industry.

A 18 Mar 19 Final RFP Release.

SOLICITATION NO.: FA8823-19-R-0005 pg. 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Para Page

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1 General Evaluation Information

1.1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.1.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

1.1.3 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property

1.1.4 Competition

1.1.5 Discussions

1.1.6 Responsibility

2. Evaluation Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.2 Relative Importance Factors and Subfactors

3. Factor 1 - Technical

3.1 General

3.1.1 Technical Approach Rating

3.1.2 Technical Risk Rating

3.2 Technical Subfactor Sections

3.2.1 Subfactor 1 – Portfolio Management

3.2.2 Subfactor 2 – Rapid Modifications

3.2.3 Subfactor 3 – Sustainment Services

3.2.4 Subfactor 4 – Transition

3.2.5 Subfactor 5 – Small Business (SB)

4. Factor 2 – Cost/Price

4.1 CLIN Pricing Summary

4.2 Cost/Price Evaluation Procedures

4.2.1 Reasonableness (Applies to All CLINs)

4.2.2 Cost Realism (Applies to All Cost Plus Incentive Fee CLINS)

4.2.3 Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to all CLINs)

4.2.4 Total Proposed Price

4.2.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

4.2.6 Complete, Accurate and Internally Consistent

5. Additional Information

5.1 Reviews and Visits

5.2 Pre-award Survey

SOLICITATION NO.: FA8823-19-R-0005 pg. 4

1. Basis for Contract Award This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and Subpart 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures issued 1 Apr 2016, and referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority, technical risk, and/or overall business approach of the higher most probable cost/priced offeror is worth the price premium.

To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

1.1 General Evaluation Information

1.1.1 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 make no award at all.

1.1.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representation and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors/subfactors and assessments/evaluation. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

1.1.3 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property The use of Government Furnished Property (GFP) will not be a consideration during the evaluation. The GFP listed in Section J, Attachment 10 to this solicitation is equally available to all Offerors. No request for additional GFP will be entertained.

1.1.4 Competition

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of initial offers, the PCO will review this determination and if, in the PCO's opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost/pricing data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2, Certificate of Current Pricing Data, will not be required.

SOLICITATION NO.: FA8823-19-R-0005 pg. 5

1.1.5 Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with Offerors, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. In the event discussions are held, they will be conducted IAW 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, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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. Because the Government may award without discussions, each offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint.

1.1.6 Responsibility

No award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. IAW FAR 9.105-1(a), before making a determination of responsibility, the contracting officer shall possess or obtain information sufficient to be satisfied that a prospective contractor currently meets the applicable standards in FAR 9.104. To be determined responsible, an Offeror must meet each of the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor responsibility. This includes but is not limited to a review of Equal Employment Opportunity (IAW FAR 22.805), potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and Professional Employee Compensation.

1.1.6.1 Professional Employee Compensation Plan

The total compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the Offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this total compensation plan will result in the Offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions. If, after evaluation, the Government determines that the Offeror has not provided sufficient justification to support its compensation plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, the Government may determine that Offeror not responsible and ineligible for award.

SOLICITATION NO.: FA8823-19-R-0005 pg. 6

1.2 Source Selection Matrix

The matrix below summarizes the evaluation factors and subfactors that will be used to obtain an integrated evaluation and determine best value.

2. Evaluation Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Portfolio Management Subfactor 2: Rapid Modifications Subfactor 3: Sustainment Services Subfactor 4: Transition Subfactor 5: Small Business

Technical approach and risk will be evaluated separately as described below and are of equal weight.

Factor 2: Cost/Price The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated IAW Section 4.0 for reasonableness, realism (conducted only on Transition CR CLIN and all CPIF CLINs), and unbalanced pricing. The Cost/Price factor will also include a check for completeness, accuracy and internal consistency.

2.2 Relative Importance Factors and Subfactors

Factor 1, Technical, which includes the technical approach rating and technical risk rating, is significantly more important than Factor 2, Cost/Price.

Within Factor 1, Subfactors 1, 2, 3, and 4 are of equal importance. Each, individually, is significantly more important than Subfactor 5.

SF1: Portfolio Management SF2: Rapid Modifications SF3: Sustainment Services SF4: Transition SF5: Small Business Participation Outstanding (Blue) Outstanding (Blue) Outstanding (Blue)

Good (Purple) Good (Purple) Good (Purple) Acceptable (Green) Acceptable (Green) Acceptable (Green) Acceptable (Pass) Acceptable (Pass) Marginal (Yellow) Marginal (Yellow) Marginal (Yellow)

Unacceptable (Red) Unacceptable (Red) Unacceptable (Red) Unacceptable (Fail) Unacceptable (Fail) Low Low Low Low

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High High High High

Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

Technical Approach (Quality)

Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to All CLINs)

Government's Most Probable Cost Adjustment $________________ Government's Total Evaluated Price $________________

Reasonableness (Applies to All Proposed Prices) Yes / No / TBD / NA (Not Assessed)

MOSSAIC Source Selection Evaluation Matrix Technical and Technical Risk Subfactors

Subfactors Relative Order of Importance

((SF1=SF2=SF3=SF4)>SF5)

Technical Risk Not Evaluated

Fa ct or

Offeror's Total Proposed Price $________________

Cost / Price

Fa ct or

M os t I m po rt an t F ac to r (S ig ni fic an tly M or e

Im po rt an t t ha n Fa ct or

Le as t M os t Im po rt an t F ac to r

Cost Realism (Applies to Cost Reimbursement CLINs)

SOLICITATION NO.: FA8823-19-R-0005 pg. 7

3. Factor 1 - Technical

3.1 General

The Offeror shall demonstrate their proposed technical approach for meeting the solicitation requirements specified by each of the five subfactors.

3.1.1 Technical Approach Rating

The purpose is to assess whether the Offeror’s proposal will meet the Government’s requirements for each of the individual Technical evaluation criteria, which are presented in detail in subsection 3.2 below. There are many aspects that may affect an Offeror’s ability to meet solicitation requirements. Technical Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 will each receive a Technical Approach Rating, as defined in Table 3-1. Subfactors 4 and 5 will receive a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”, as defined in Table 3-2.

Table 3-1: Subfactors 1, 2 and 3 Technical Rating Method

Color Adjectival

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

• 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.

• 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.

If the Offeror attempts to identify proposal “strengths”, the Government reserves the right to accept or not accept the Offeror’s assessment of strengths. Offerors are hereby notified that any strengths identified by the Government are very likely to be incorporated into the resulting contract. If the Offeror does not agree to such incorporation, then the Government is very likely to choose not to consider those strengths when making the best value determination. The awarded contract will reflect any beneficial and/or advantageous aspects of the awardee’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements.

SOLICITATION NO.: FA8823-19-R-0005 pg. 8

Table 3-2: Subfactors 4 and 5 Technical Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.1.2 Technical Risk Rating

The purpose is to assess the risk of the proposed technical approach related to the evaluation criteria in subsection 3.2. Technical risk considers potential or likelihood for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, contractor effort and emphasis, the need for increased Government monitoring, or the likelihood of overcoming difficulties. For Technical Subfactors 1, 2, 3, and 4, the Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for weaknesses and significant weaknesses, as defined below:

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

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

Technical Subfactors 1, 2, 3 and 4 will each receive a Technical Risk Rating, as described below in Table 3-3, based upon an evaluation of the risk associated with the proposed technical approach.

Table 3-3: Technical Risk Rating Method Adjectival

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

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

High

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

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

3.2 Technical Subfactor Sections

The Technical Factor is divided into five (5) subfactors. The information provided for each subfactor will be evaluated in the aggregate at the subfactor level.

SOLICITATION NO.: FA8823-19-R-0005 pg. 9

3.2.1 Subfactor 1 – Portfolio Management

3.2.1.1 Using the information provided (as directed by Section L, paragraph 3.2.1.1), the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound understanding of the Space Situational Awareness (SSA), SSA Command and Control (C2), and Space Battle Management and Control (BMC2) missions and their interdependencies.

3.2.1.2 Using the information provided (as directed by Section L, paragraph 3.2.1.2), the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound understanding of the challenges associated with managing a portfolio of interdependent systems.

3.2.1.3 Using the information provided (as directed by Section L, paragraph 3.2.1.3), the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach to address the challenges (identified in 3.2.1.2) and efficiently manage the MOSSAIC portfolio as an enterprise, rather than an aggregation of independent systems.

3.2.1.4 Using the information provided (as directed by Section L, paragraph 3.2.1.4), the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach to develop and prioritize annual investment recommendations that maximize portfolio mission effectiveness.

3.2.1.5 Using the information provided (as directed by Section L, paragraph 3.2.1.5), the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates their experience in successfully applying the approach to manage a portfolio of interdependent systems, rather than an aggregation of independent systems.

3.2.2 Subfactor 2 – Rapid Modifications

3.2.2.1 Using the information provided (as directed by Section L, paragraph 3.2.2.1), the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates their experience in successfully executing rapid system modifications.

3.2.2.2 Using the information provided (as directed by Section L, paragraph 3.2.2.2), the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach to reduce cycle time (requirements identification to operational acceptance) of MOSSAIC system modifications.

3.2.2.3 Using the information provided (as directed by Section L, paragraph 3.2.2.3), the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach to execute the GEODSS Upgrade and Relocation Program (GBOSS).

3.2.3 Subfactor 3 – Sustainment Services

3.2.3.1 Using the information provided (as directed by Section L, paragraph 3.2.3.1), the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach to execute the requirements of PWS Task 5.2.

3.2.3.2 Using the information provided (as directed by Section L, paragraph 3.2.3.2), the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach to execute Sustainment Services.

SOLICITATION NO.: FA8823-19-R-0005 pg. 10

3.2.4 Subfactor 4 – Transition

3.2.4.1 Using the information provided (as directed by Section L, paragraph 3.2.4.1), the standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates a sound approach to execute PWS Transition Tasks 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8; and how the approach provides uninterrupted support to the fielded weapon systems, minimize risk of damage to SIL equipment, and minimize transition cost.

3.2.5 Subfactor 5 – Small Business (SB)

3.2.5.1 Using the information provided (as directed by Section L, paragraph 3.2.5.1), the standard is met when the Offeror demonstrates it will meet the 15% (PWS paragraph 3.15) Small Business participation requirement (15% of Sustainment Services Option Year One Total Contract Value (Sum of CLINs 0101 and 0111).

4. Factor 2 – Cost/Price The Offeror’s cost/price proposal Total Proposed Price (TPP) will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism (for Cost Reimbursement CLINs), and unbalanced pricing. In the evaluation, the Government may use data external to the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. For all CLIN types, the evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The government-calculated Total Evaluated Price (TEP), as described in this section, will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for the best value trade-off decision. TEP will not include Transition price.

Table 4-1: Total Evaluated Price Total Evaluated Price

Title (A)

Contract Type (B)

Cost (C)

Fee/Profit $ (D)

Total CLIN Amount (E)

MOSSAIC Sustainment Services CLINs

FPIF N/A N/A Proposed FPIF Ceiling Prices

Extension of Services Options

FPIF N/A N/A Proposed FPIF Ceiling Prices

Sustainment Services Annual CR CLINs

CR Govt Provided N/A Govt Provided

SVR CLINs CPIF Gov't MPC Offeror's Total Proposed Target Fee

(C+D)

Rights in Data FFP N/A N/A Sum of Attachment 7 Tables 1a and 3

Columns 5 PMPs CPIF Gov't MPC Offeror's Total

Proposed Target Fee 86*(C+D)

GBOSS TMRR CPIF Gov't MPC Offeror's Total Proposed Target Fee

(C+D)

GBOSS EMD CPIF Gov't MPC Offeror's Total Proposed Target Fee

(C+D)

Total Evaluated Price Sum of Column E

4.1 CLIN Pricing Summary

The Offeror’s proposed values included in Volume III of the proposal and in the CLINS of the model contract will be evaluated for reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and cost realism

SOLICITATION NO.: FA8823-19-R-0005 pg. 11

(for Cost Reimbursement CLINs only – cost realism will not be conducted on Government provided plug numbers). No price realism on FPIF or FFP CLINs will be conducted. For all Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) types, the evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

4.2 Cost/Price Evaluation Procedures

4.2.1 Reasonableness (Applies to All CLINs)

4.2.1.1 The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness will be an assessment of whether the price is too high.

4.2.1.2 In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1.

4.2.1.3 A determination of unreasonableness for any priced CLIN will render the proposal un-awardable.

4.2.1.4 In addition, a reasonableness determination will not be made on proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable as they are ineligible for award.

4.2.2 Cost Realism (Applies to All Cost Reimbursement CLINS)

4.2.2.1 The Offeror’s proposal for all Cost Reimbursement CLINs will be assessed for realism, where realism is an assessment of whether or not the cost is too low. Except for the Transition CLIN, any Cost Realism cost adjustments will be used in establishing the Government’s Most Probable Cost (MPC) that will become part of the TEP calculation for best value consideration. Cost realism will not be conducted on Government provided plug numbers and Price Realism will not be evaluated on FPIF or FFP CLINs.

4.2.2.2 The Offeror’s proposed costs and prices 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 Volume. Any proposed cost element may be adjusted based upon the Government analysis of each proposed cost element.

4.2.2.2.1 The cost analysis will consider the Offeror’s proposed approach. The cost analysis will include a technical review of whether the proposed resources are adequate for the approach, and an evaluation of whether the costs of these resources are realistic.

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

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

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

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

4.2.2.4 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 various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal [FAR 15.404-1(d)].

SOLICITATION NO.: FA8823-19-R-0005 pg. 12

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

4.2.2.6 If an Offeror’s proposal is determined to be technically unacceptable, the proposal will not be assessed for realism.

4.2.3 Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to all CLINs)

4.2.3.1 The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing.

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.

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

4.2.3.3 If an Offeror’s proposal is determined to be technically unacceptable, the proposal will not be assessed for unbalanced pricing.

4.2.4 Total Proposed Price

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

4.2.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will adjust the proposed Total Proposed Price (TPP) with the Government’s MPC adjustments to get the TEP. The Government-calculated TEP will be used in the best value decision process.

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, if established, and further consideration for award. The burden of proof rests with the Offeror.

4.2.6 Complete, Accurate and Internally Consistent

Data in Volumes II (Technical), III (Cost/Price) and IV (Contract Documentation) will be assessed for completeness, accuracy and internal consistency. Any inconsistency between Volumes may negatively impact the Technical, Technical Risk and/or Cost/Price evaluation.

The Government reserves the right to determine that, if any inconsistency exists between Model Contract and Volume III, the Model Contract will take precedence. In the event there is inconsistency, the value in the Model Contract will be used in the TEP calculation.

5. Additional Information

5.1 Reviews and Visits

The Government does not intend to conduct site visits during the evaluation phase.

5.2 Pre-award Survey

The Government does not intend to conduct a Pre-award Survey as part of this source selection.

1.2 Source Selection Matrix