SECTION_M_Amendment_31Dec2013_track.pdf

FA8903-14-R-0004

Section M

21 November31 December 2013

SECTION M (Fairchild Air Force Base Performance-Based Remediation)

Evaluation Factors for Award

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

A. 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 Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, 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. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force (AF) the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. 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 and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. Award Without Discussions The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA determines discussions to be necessary. For the purposes of making the award decision without discussions, all initial proposals that are rated technically Unacceptable on any subfactor will be deemed unawardable.

C. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one (1) contract for Performance-Based Remediation (PBR) at Fairchild Air Force Base (AFB), Washington.

D. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically low in cost when compared to

Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

A. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Selection shall be made on a “Tradeoff” basis. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1.1: Technical Approach Subfactor 1.2: Plan B Contingency Approach Subfactor 1.3: Management Approach Subfactor 1.4: Corporate Experience (same projects as Past Performance)

Factor 2: Past Performance (same projects as Corporate Experience) Factor 3: Price

2) Relative Importance of Factors and subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance and Price are listed in descending order of importance. Within the Technical factor, the relative importance of each subfactor is as follows and are listed in descending order of importance:

Subfactor 1.1 is most important; Subfactor 1.2 is more important than Subfactors 1.3 and 1.4, but less important than Subfactor 1.1; Subfactor 1.3 is more important than Subfactor 1.4, and Subfactor 1.4 is of least importance. For the purposes of making the award decision, all proposals that are rated technically unacceptable on any Subfactor will be deemed unawardable.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

B. Technical Factor (FACTOR 1)

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

1) Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below in Table 1. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

2) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted in Table 2 below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the Offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

Subfactor 1.1: Technical Approach:

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal includes a realistic approach that is technically appropriate based on current site conditions, is consistent with the Government’s objectives, and provides an explanation in sufficient detail to support Government evaluation of how all of the objectives and requirements in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and other applicable agreements will be met or exceeded while ensuring protection of human and ecological health, maintaining regulatory compliance, and minimizing AF life-cycle costs (LCC).

At a minimum, the Offeror’s proposal shall:

1) Include a Technical Summary Table of information for each site listed in the PWS that reflects the Offeror’s proposed approach.

2) Adequately demonstrate, through the use of a business case analysis with sufficient detail, why the proposed performance objective for each site (including the minimum performance objective if that is what is proposed) is an optimal end state for the Government. The business case analysis shall be provided for each site, including sites in which SC is proposed. The Offeror shall provide a sound, defensible approach to achieve SC or advance the site status as close to SC as possible during the POP without expending large sums for contingencies for all sites in Table 1 of the PWS, and the specific performance objectives for sites listed in Table 2 of the PWS (with no stretch goal proposed).

3) For all sites in Table 1 of the PWS where the proposed performance objective includes an Optimized Exit Strategy (OES), the Offeror shall adequately demonstrate sound OESs using objective metrics and transparent decision logic.

The OES shall demonstrate the following: a logical and realistic technical approach, a performance model demonstrating how concentrations will be reduced over time from baseline conditions, and how interim and final performance objectives will be met.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

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.

i. The proposed performance model shall adequately demonstrate the expected outcome or state at the end of the POP through relevant performance indicators (e.g., concentration decrease throughout the POP for specified contaminants, or risk reduction). Depending on site complexity, several indicators may be needed to adequately reflect performance of an OES. These criteria apply to both conceptual and fully-developed performance models.

ii. The proposal shall adequately describe quantitative performance models for

LF002, FT004, ST010, DP012, DP013, SD031, FT032, LF001, WP003,

SS018, and SS026. The proposal shall adequately describe quantitative performance models or appropriately detailed conceptual-type performance models for the remainder of the OES sites.

4) The Offeror’s technical approach shall adequately demonstrate reasonable and logical activities and assumptions for the remaining AF financial liability for achieving SC, if not reached during the POP. This includes anticipated activities (and their duration), and realistic assumptions. POP and Post-POP life cycle activities and assumptions will be evaluated to substantiate the Offeror’s understanding of the work. For the purpose of determining whether the Offeror’s proposed technical approach will reduce LCC, the Government may compare the Offeror’s LCC estimate (computed by the Government) to the Government’s independent LCC estimate. The Government’s independent LCC estimate is $29.4 Million.

5) The Offeror's proposal shall also include a sound and realistic activity-based Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). At a minimum, the Offeror’s IMS shall:

i. Outline key activities and milestones defined at the appropriate level and logically sequenced to support and manage achievement of the proposed performance objectives, consistent with the narrative discussion of the approach in the proposal.

ii. Adequately demonstrate achievement of proposed performance objectives within the time designated.

iii. Effectively identify the required OES deliverables. Proposals shall adequately demonstrate that the activities and milestones defined are reasonable achievements associated with implementing the OES strategy with use of the performance model (i.e., interim and final performance goals).

iv. Adequately demonstrate logical incorporation of Government and Regulatory review periods for deliverables.

6) The Offeror's proposal shall also include a sound and realistic activity-based Milestone Payment Schedule (MPS) (without price information). At a minimum, the MPS shall adequately demonstrate correlation with the IMS and Technical Approach and include milestones defined at the appropriate level and logically sequenced, considered integral and necessary to the achievement of the performance objective.

7) The Offeror’s technical approach shall include an adequate description of routine, preventative, and proactive operations and maintenance (i.e. vegetative management, corrosion control, and other activities as described in the O&M Plan) to preserve the value of the Government’s infrastructure and reduce LCC.

8) Offerors shall adequately demonstrate an approach to energy management that will minimize costs to the Government and reduce impacts on the environment.

9) Offerors shall describe a technical approach and field efforts required to adequately demonstrate compliance and effectiveness of monitoring and treatment systems. Technical approach description shall include (as appropriate and not all-inclusive) additional characterization including additional monitoring well installation, conceptual site model updates, groundwater model/plume shell updates, monitoring plan updates, decision document modification, and treatment system modifications.

Subfactor 1.2: Plan B Contingency Approach:

This subfactor is met when the Offeror proposes a Plan B Contingency Approach that demonstrates logical and reasonable strategies for elimination or mitigation of risks associated with the proposed technical approach, inclusive of potential system failures, (e.g., Plan B).

At a minimum, the Offeror’s proposal shall:

1) Effectively identify the significant risk factors associated with achieving the performance objectives using the proposed technical approach.

2) Adequately demonstrate an appropriate risk mitigation approach to ensure the proposed performance objective is met.

3) Adequately demonstrate logical and reasonable contingency plans (alternate technical approach/i.e. Plan B) to ensure achievement of the proposed performance objectives. The proposal shall include the decision logic and timing for implementation of the contingency plan if the proposed approach proves incapable of meeting the proposed performance objectives within the required timeframes.

Subfactor 1.3: Management Approach:

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal includes a comprehensive Management Plan and key personnel and additional personnel qualifications. The Management Plan shall include a qualified field and management team, including key personnel and additional personnel with relevant experience to efficiently and effectively achieve the proposed site-specific performance objectives and milestones as scheduled, manage the requirements, and ensure quality services and deliverables.

At a minimum, the Offeror’s Management Plan shall include:

1) Clear identification of roles and responsibilities for key personnel and additional personnel, subcontractors, and other relevant team members and provide an organizational chart. Key personnel shall include: Program Manager, Program QA/QC Manager, Program Health and Safety Manager, Program Chemist, Senior Project Manager, and Toxicologist, and Public Affairs Officer.

2) An adequate demonstration of effective and efficient management of the work in order to meet the requirements of the PWS

3) An adequate demonstration of an efficient approach for managing multiple and concurrent events.

4) An adequate demonstration that the team members have relevant experience with the remediation technologies proposed.

5) An adequate demonstration of procedures/processes to ensure high-quality services and submission of deliverables. At a minimum, the procedures/processes shall include change management, team integration/coordination, minimize data errors, review process (project reviewing, editing for content); high-level review process to vet decisions on projects (schedule, cost, technical aspects).

6) An adequate demonstration of effective communication between stakeholders (AF, Contractor, Regulators and Community).

7) An adequate demonstration of efficient and effective management of team members and subcontractors.

At a minimum, the Offeror’s key personnel and additional personnel qualifications shall include:

• Provision of key personnel demonstrating applicable qualifications required in Attachment 4 to include:

o A Program Manager - meeting the required labor category qualifications in Attachment 4 that has relevant experience and ability to provide effective and efficient management and implementation of the PBR efforts as outlined in the PWS.

o Program QA/QC Manager - meeting the required labor category qualifications in Attachment 4 that has relevant experience and ability in development, maintenance, and implementation of an environmental restoration program.

o Program Health and Safety Manager - meeting the required labor category qualifications in Attachment 4 that has relevant experience and ability in development, maintenance, and implementation of the health and safety systems for the contractor, including oversight, review, reporting, training, and control of employee health and safety processes.

o A Program Chemist - meeting the required labor category qualifications in Attachment 4 that has relevant experience and ability to provide effective interpretation of data and data reviews and quality checks as outlined in the PWS.

o Senior Project Manager - meeting the required labor category qualifications in Attachment 4 that has relevant experience and ability to provide effective and efficient management and implementation of the PBR efforts as outlined in the PWS.

o Toxicologist – meeting the required labor category qualifications in Attachment 4 that has relevant experience and ability to provide specialized input into systematic planning of environmental investigations to identify, monitor, and evaluate the impact of toxic materials to human health and the environment.

Subfactor 1.4: Corporate Experience (same projects as Past Performance):

This subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates team experience in accordance with the scope presented in the PWS as represented by submitted projects conducted within five (5) years of the date of the solicitation. The Government will not consider nor evaluate corporate experience on an Offeror submission that concluded more than five (5) years prior to the date of the solicitation. For projects/contracts/TOs that are actively being performed, performance must be a minimum of 50% complete as of the date of solicitation for this contract. The submitted projects shall be of a nature similar to the efforts addressed under this solicitation in terms of size, scope, and technical and regulatory complexity in accordance with the requirements outlined in the PWS.

Positive consideration may be given to projects that include the following:

• Award value equal to or greater than $10M;

• An initial period of performance equal to or more than five years;

• 20 or more sites;

• PBR efforts focused on progressing sites beyond the current state;

• Achievement of SC;

• Experience in the regulatory environment (CERCLA) prevalent to the State of

Washington and EPA Region 10;

• Experience in remediation solvent plumes in fractured bedrock and experience with Vapor Intrusion.

C. Past Performance Factor (FACTOR 2)

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below in Table 3.

2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(a) 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 five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. For projects/contracts/TOs that are actively being performed, performance must be a minimum of 50% complete as of the date of solicitation for this contract. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

TABLE 3- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

(b) Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those projects relate to the Fairchild PBR contract requirements. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed for all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. Higher Relevancy ratings may be given to projects that include:

• Award value equal to or greater than $10M;

• An initial period of performance equal to or more than five years;

• 20 or more sites;

• PBR efforts focused on progressing sites beyond the current state;

• Achievement of SC;

• Experience in the regulatory environment (CERCLA) prevalent to the State of

Washington and EPA Region 10;

• Experience in remediation solvent plumes in fractured bedrock and experience with Vapor Intrusion.

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 relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance questionnaires (PPQs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(c) Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 5 – QUALITY ASSESSMENT RATINGS/COLORS

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating IAW paragraph C(1) above. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an

"Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

D. Price Factor (Factor 3)

(1) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) for completeness and reasonableness. The TEP consists of all of the Offeror's proposed sub-CLINs, regardless of year in which they may be exercised. A proposal is complete when all price data, as outlined in the RFP has been submitted in the proper format (provided). Price analysis will be utilized to evaluate the price reasonableness of offered total prices. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Price realism analysis may be conducted and will measure the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements; therefore, the Government may reject any proposal evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or unrealistically low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

(2) Performance milestones shall be achievable, measurable, and demonstrate progress towards achieving the proposed site-specific performance objectives. Performance milestone payments shall be appropriate and align with the Technical Approach and the IMS. The Government will evaluate milestones to ensure that they are NOT front loaded without supporting rationale and to ensure sufficient incentive remains to complete milestones and achieve performance objectives in accordance with the PWS.

(3) Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(4) The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following. In addition, the Government may conduct a price realism analysis. The following techniques may be used by the Government to determine reasonableness and realism:

(a) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403- 1(c)(1)).

(b) Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial items including those “of a type” or requiring minor modifications.

(i) The prior price must be a valid basis for comparison. If there has been a significant time lapse between the last acquisition and the present one, if the terms and conditions of the acquisition are significantly different, or if the reasonableness of the prior price is uncertain, then the prior price may not be a valid basis for comparison.

(ii) The prior price must be adjusted to account for materially differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors. For similar items, the contracting officer must also adjust the prior price to account for material differences between the similar item and the item being procured.

(iii) Expert technical advice will be obtained to analyze the magnitude of changes between the technical approach, terms and conditions, quantities, and market and economic factors for the Offeror’s proposal, and those that provided the basis for the historical prices. Expert technical advice will also be used to assist in pricing the changes.

(c) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

(d) Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

(e) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

(f) Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the Offeror.

Each Offeror’s price proposal shall be evaluated using one or more of the price analysis techniques listed above. Each technique, if utilized, shall be applied to all Offeror proposals.

E. Discussions

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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

F. Responsibility Determination

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) is required to make a determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.1. As part of the determination, pre-award surveys may be conducted and the PCO may request assistance from the cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) office.

M003 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

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 or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/02.htm#P10_631