FCC_-_ISAS_-_Addendum_to_FAR_52_212-1doc.pdf

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 [Tailored]

1 General

The competition shall be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 12 in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award prescribed in Part 15.

The period of performance shall be one year from the date of contract award. There are four (4) one (1) year option periods, to be exercised, in whole or in part, at the discretion of the Government. The base period and all option periods will be evaluated.

The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 90 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the completeness of its proposal. Proposals shall be specific and comply with the format, composition, and content instructions set forth below. An Offeror shall clearly address in its proposals how it will satisfy the contract requirements, paying particular attention to evaluation factors and subfactors.

Statements that merely repeat the requirements may be regarded as showing a lack of

Offeror comprehension and will likely result negatively in the proposal evaluation. The

Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capabilities not specified in its proposal, except as ascertained from information received under processes disclosed in this document.

2 Instructions for Submissions by Offerors

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s understanding of the Government requirements and ability to perform the work on the basis of its proposal. It is the

Offeror’s responsibility to provide information and evidence that clearly demonstrates its ability to satisfactorily respond to the Solicitation requirements. The Government does not intend to: evaluate more than one offer from each offeror (i.e. alternative offers);

accept offers on less than the total requirement; make award on the basis of quantities less than the quantities offered; or make awards to multiple offerors.

The Offeror shall have Past Performance Questionnaires submitted on their behalf by points-of-contact (POC) responsible for the past/current contract references. If a Past

Performance Questionnaire is received directly from an Offeror, it will be rejected and not used for evaluation purposes.

Proposal Due and Submission:

Award will be made under Solicitation FCC 13R0006. All proposals are due NO

LATER THAN 2:00PM EST on September 4, 2013.

Proposals shall be hand delivered directly to the following address:

FCC/OMD/CPC

Attention: Contracting Officer Sunny Diemert

445 12 th St. SW 1-A325

Washington, DC 20554

Please see Attachment “Public Notice” on ISAS Proposal Submission Instruction for further instruction.

NOTE: Facsimile or email proposal shall NOT be considered for this Solicitation.

Proposal shall be delivered directly to: FCC Headquarter Building located at 445 th

Street, SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Proposals SHALL NOT be submitted via US Mail, UPS, FedEX or choice of carrier mail.

The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of four (4) separate volumes with eight (8) copies of each volume. The Volumes are I – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and

Certifications/Representations; Volume II – Technical; III – Past Performance; and IV –

Price.

3 Formatting and File Packing

Proposal text shall be at least one-and-one-half spaced, typewritten, on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper, with a minimum one inch margin all around. Text on resumes may be single spaced. Print shall be of a minimum 12-point font size or a maximum 10 characters per inch (10-pitch, pica) spacing. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same restrictions, shall utilize spacing and text that is easily readable.

Pages in each volume of an Offeror’s proposal shall be consecutively numbered.

Volumes with structured sections shall be numbered consecutively, reflecting the section being numbered (e.g., in Vol. II , the fourth page of Key Personnel and Staffing section would be page 3-4). Each volume shall contain a Table of Contents and a List of Tables and Figures. Each volume shall be appropriately numbered and clearly identified with the date and solicitation number.

Written proposals shall be submitted in four (4) volumes, as outlined above, in Proposal

Submission. Offerors shall attach a cover sheet to the outer cover of each volume, which clearly identifies each volume number, volume name, and copy number (i.e., Volume II, Technical Approach, copy 1 of 8), Request for Proposal (RFP) number, Offeror identity, and date of submission. Use tabsto identify each section within a particular proposal volume.

4 Questions and Answers on the Solicitation

Offerors may submit questions concerning the solicitation via electronic mail to

Sunny.Diemert@fcc.gov. The Government is under no obligation to answer questions about the solicitation received by it after 2:00PM EST on August 20, 2013. Please number each question and be as clear as possible. Responses to questions submitted will be issued via an amendment to the solicitation only, which shall be posted to www.fbo.gov(for questions submitted prior to receipt of initial proposals). Questions shall be published with the answers. Questions may be published verbatim as received.

While an Offeror’s identity will not be published with the questions, those submitting questions may nevertheless wish to frame their questions without reliance on confidential or proprietary information and without revealing their bidding strategy. Offerors are encouraged to monitor the Federal Business Opportunities website for amendments or other relevant information concerning the solicitation.

mailto:Sunny.Diemert@fcc.gov http://www.fbo.gov/

5 Proposal Package Content

Content Requirements:

All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume. The Offeror shall confine submissions to germane information, sufficient to define the proposal details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Volumes I, II, and IV of the proposal shall contain a Table of Contents. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. There are NO page limitations, except for Vol. I, § 2 (Executive

Summary).

6.0 Proposal Content

6.1 SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD DOCUMENTS,

CERTIFICATION/REPRESENTATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY (Volume I)

a) Section 1: SF 1449 and Certifications and Representations

Submit the offer under a signed and dated SF 1449, together with all acknowledged amendments. See FAR 52.212-1(a). With respect to FAR 52.212-1(k), Offerors must be registered in SAM by the due date and time for receipt of initial proposals.

b) Section 2: Executive Summary (10 page limit)

The Offeror shall provide an executive summary that highlights particularly significant aspectsof its offer and describes the most significant aspects of the Offeror’s experience, capabilities, organization, and background. This information must not exceed ten (10) typewritten pages.

c) Section 3: Exceptions

Offerors must expressly state in this section whether or not it makes or takes any assumptions, conditions, or exceptions respecting the terms, conditions, and requirements of this RFP and explain any assumption, condition, or exception made or taken. If no assumption, condition, or exception is made or taken, a contract placed with the Offeror shall incorporate the terms, conditions, and requirements as set forth in the RFP and the

Vendor agrees to be bound thereby. See § M.2.2.

6.2 TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT (VOLUME II):

The Technical/Management Volume shall be organized in the following format.

Table of Contents

Section 1 : Software and Technical Support

Section 2: Implementation and Integration Plan

Section 3: Software Delivery Method Plan

Section 4: Key Personnel and Staffing

Section 5: Corporate Electronic Auction Experience

Appendices: A: Matrix

B: Subcontracts (Draft or Final)

Offeror shall provide a description of its overall technical/management capability for fulfilling the requirements for the contract, which addresses, at a minimum, the following information. Detail is important. No pricing information shall be provided in the

Technical/Management Capability Volume.

a) Section 1: Software and Technical Support

In this section, the Offeror shall submit a description that details its ability and readiness to provide the software and technical support required. The description shall detail how the proposed software meets the requirements of SOW § 3.1.1.The Offeror shall explain how the software meets these requirements, either “as- is” or with minor modifications or modifications customarily available in the commercial marketplace that it can deliver on or before the date of award, explaining the nature and method of any necessary modification. The Offeror shall identify which of the design features in SOW § 3.1.2 the system can satisfy “as-is,” or if not, which of the design features, if any, the system could likely satisfy with minor modifications or modifications customarily available in the commercial marketplace, explaining the nature and method of any necessary modification. This section shall describe how the Offeror proposes to meet requirements for maintenance and the extent of technical documentation available for the software.

Offeror shall demonstrate its understanding of the subject matter and how the software can be configured or modified to meet the requirements within a reasonable timeframe.

The description shall detail how the Offeror will provide the required technical and operational support, including the different tiers of help desk support, both during an auction and between auctions. Offerors shall provide a detailed description of the proposed services provided and performance metrics for each tier of support proposed and each type of support, including internal and external support. Performance metrics shall include at a minimum the timeliness of response and resolution of issue. The

Offeror shall describe its proposed maintenance arrangements, including software enhancements. Offeror shall describe the licensing and use rights it proposes for the

Government auction bidding software and how the licensing structure facilitates the

Offeror meeting the requirements in section 3 of the SOW and the Government obtaining its objectives. Offeror shall describe the details of its proposed use/license terms. The

Offeror shall describe how the proposed auction bidding software solution complies with

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (a list of software guidelines can be found at http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.21.htm).

b) Section 2: Implementation and Integration Plan

In this section, the Offeror shall submit a detailed Implementation and Integration Plan, which shall describe how it will perform the implementation and integration services.

The Offeror shall identify the technologies it will use to support production and the system load capacity. The Offeror shall detail in the plan a development procedure or protocol for configuring or modifying the proposed software in a timely way. The plan shall include the procedures for managing the project, criteria for assuring quality and acceptability of the products and services, the schedule and coordination of the project, and any security requirements. The Offeror shall describe in detail its understanding of the requirements, the purpose and scope, and the degree of difficulty in successfully accomplishing the effort and the proposed timeframe for completing requirement. The

Offeror shall demonstrate its ability to accomplish work in a timely manner and within the established budget.

c) Section 3: Software Delivery Method Plan

In this section, the Offeror shall submit a plan for the method of delivery for the software.

The plan shall identify the factors and reasoning the Offeror considered in determining the approach for software delivery.

If Offeror elects to propose hosting services, the Plan shall include the following subsections:

Hosting (a) Hosting Services and Support: A complete description of its hosting solution, including all the services necessary to deliver its proposed approach from project initiation through system cut-over and all post-deployment production operations. The description shall include, without limitation, a discussion of operational and technical support, both during an auction and between auctions. The Offeror shall describe its methods of compliance with the hosting requirements and how compliance will be incorporated into the proposed service level agreement (SLA).

Hosting (b) Hosting Model: A description of the cloud hosting model and how it will afford data protection and system reliability.

Hosting (c) Risk Management: A description of how system failures will be prevented and mitigated and how risk of different potential failures will be prioritized and managed.

Hosting (d) Security: A description of the system’s security features and measures, including method of authentication (use of HSPD-12 PIV card authentication is preferred) and how the environment will comply with FISMA certification and accreditation.

d) Section 4: Key Personnel and Staffing

In this section, the Offeror shall submit a complete staffing plan. The staffing plan shall include, at a minimum:

Key Personnel resumes. The Offeror shall provide a resume for each proposed Key Personnel.

An explanation of the Offeror’s administrative chain of command at its firm and the chain of command for this requirement.

An organizational chart for the Offeror’s firm and an organizational chart depicting institutional relationships and the chain of command for completion of this effort.

A plan for the pre-screening of candidates for background issues that could render the candidate unsuitable to pass the required Commission background investigation.

e) Section 5: Corporate Electronic Auction Experience

The Offeror shall describe its experience performing similar auction work with the proposed software during the last five (5) years. The Offeror shall describe its experience as it relates to the requirements in the SOW for this procurement, on contracts that are of similar scope and complexity to the Commission’s auction program (or that were of greater scope and complexity).

f) Appendices

Appendix A: Offerors shall provide a matrix that cross-indexes their Volume I proposal contents to relevant provisions in the SOW, this addendum to FAR 52.212-1 [Tailored] and Section M– Continuation Sheet of the solicitation.

Appendix B: Offerors shall append to this section copies of all subcontracts, if any, with firms it proposes to significantly use to perform the resulting contract. The agreements may be provided in draft or final form, Agreements provided in draft form must be seasonably supplemented with the final version within 10 days after award.

6.3. PAST PERFORMANCE (VOLUME III)

The Offeror shall identify contracts, which it has recently performed or completed

(within 5 years from the closing date of the solicitation) or is currently performing, that are similar in size and scope to the instant requirement (or are of greater scope and complexity). The contracts may be, but need not be, related to those discussed in Vol. II, § 5. Contracts listed may include those entered into with Government agencies, the private sector, associations, non-profits, or any other business organization. The Offeror shall provide the following information with respect to each of these contracts:

a. Contract number, contract type and dollar value.

b. Date of contract award and period of performance.

c. Name, address, telephone number and e-mail of all applicable contract points of contact.

d. Brief description of contract work, scope, and responsibilities.

The Offeror shall complete the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and e-mail the questionnaire to the Government or other point-of-contact (POC) responsible for the past/current contract reference. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to Sunny.Diemert@fcc.gov no later than 4:00pm Eastern Standard Time (EST) on August 23, 2013.

The Government may contact all or some subset of persons listed as points of contact for each contract for additional reference information.

6.4 PRICE (VOLUME IV)

The Offeror shall complete the Schedule of Supplies/Services page(s) of the Standard

Form (SF) 1449 of the solicitation with pricing for the base and each option period for each Contract Line Item (CLIN).

See Attachment on Price Instruction for Software Delivery Method – Hosting Off-Site, Implementation and Integration – Standard Auction Design, and Special Projects.

mailto:Sunny.Diemert@fcc.gov

7.0 Evaluation and Factors for Award

The Government intends to award upon initial proposals. Therefore, the Offerors initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. For evaluation purposes, the base period plus all four (4) options will be considered.

7.1 Evaluation Factors

The significant evaluation and subfactors for this solicitation are:

Factor 1: Technical/Management Capability

Subfactor A Software and Technical Support Capability

Subfactor B Implementation and Integration Capability

Subfactor C Software Delivery Method

Subfactor D Key Personnel and Staffing

Subfactor E Corporate Electronic Auction Experience

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price/Cost

7.1.2 Factors and Subfactors: Relative Importance, Articulation, and Use

The factors are stated in descending order of importance. Factor 1 is appreciably more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is slightly more important than Factor 3.

Within Factor 1, Subfactor A is more important than any of the other subfactors.

Subfactor B is more important than Subfactor C. Subfactor C is more than Subfactors D and E, which are of equal importance.

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

The relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors, as well as the relative importance of the price cost factors to all other factors combined, is unaffected by whether or not the Offeror proposes to hosting the software.

Factors 1 -3 are described in below. While each factor and subfactor described below will be principally evaluated by reference to the proposal volume or section on the same topic, the Government may also consider other related or interdependent proposal material in other volumes or sections. The overall objective of the evaluation of these factors and subfactors is for the Government to ascertain the extent to which it can receive from the

Offeror timely, high quality, consistently reliable, and successful work as set forth in the

SOW.

7.1.3 Factor 1: Technical/Management Capability

The Commission will evaluate the merits of the Offeror’s technical approach to provide auction software and services as specified in this solicitation. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of all elements of the software, technical and service requirements, the soundness and technical ability of the proposed software and technical approach and the validity of the proposed methodology to meet the requirements in the SOW as required in the solicitation. The following sub factors will be evaluated under this factor.

Subfactor A: Software and Technical Support Capability

a. The Offeror detailed how each of the functional and technical requirements in SOW§§ 3.1, 3.1.1, and 3.2 (if applicable) will be met.

The proposal reflects the Offeror’s reasoning and approaches to meeting the functional and technical software requirements.

b. The extent to which, and the ease with which, the Offeror’s software currently provides or can be modified to provide (with minor modifications or modifications customarily available in the commercial marketplace) one or more of the design features set forth in SOW § 3.1.2.

c. The Offeror demonstrated its understanding of the subject matter and how the software can be configured/ modified to deliver the services within a reasonable timeframe.

d. The Offeror detailed how it will provide the operational/technical support and its proposed maintenance arrangements including software enhancements. The proposal reflects the Offeror’s reasoning and approaches to meeting the requirements for operational and technical support both during an auction and between auctions.

Subfactor B: Implementation and Integration Capability

a. The Offeror detailed how it will perform the implementation and integration services. The proposal reflected the Offeror’s plans and procedures for managing the project, criteria for assuring quality and acceptability of the products and services, and the schedule and coordination of the project. The appropriateness of all proposed methodologies and analyses, fully describing and discussing in detail its understanding of the requirements, the purpose and scope, and the degree of difficulty in successfully accomplishing the effort and the proposed timeframe for completing requirement.

b. The Offeror demonstrated its understanding of the subject matter and the ability to configure/modify the proposed software in a timely way.

c. The proposal reflected the Offeror’s reasoning and approaches to meet the objectives of the requirement with creativity and thoroughness. The Offeror demonstrated its understanding of the subject matter and the ability to accomplish work in a timely manner and within the established budget.

d. The proposal demonstrated that the Offeror’s plan to accomplish the effort is clear, feasible, and practical, including recognition of potential difficulties in performance and appropriateness.

e. The Offeror detailed how it will meet the security requirements in the SOW.

f. The Offeror explained how the software will promote and be used in a flexible and extendable environment capable of interpreting changing auction business rules, ongoing configurations, and modifications to meet the Commission’s objectives.

Subfactor C: Software Delivery Method

a. How well the Offeror detailed and explained its selected approach for software delivery, including the rigorousness of its reasoning and approaches to meeting the requirements.

b. The degree to which the plan offers continuity from the initial implementation stage through close-out.

If Offeror selects to deliver software through a hosted service, the following considerations will be taken into account under this subfactor:

The degree of assurance the proposal provides that the Offeror can and will successfully perform the required auctions services and operational and technical support, both during and between auctions, as hosted, and that the

IT service level will be met.

The identification and clarity of the cloud hosting model to be deployed, the comprehensiveness and rigor of data protections being offered from the initial planning stage through close-out, and the Offeror’s service guarantee or uptime of the software and associated cloud computing equipment. The sufficiency and merit of the Offeror’s risk and failure prevention and mitigation plans and how they are apt to lessen impacts on a live auction that potentially threaten the objective of the work and potentially raise the

Government’s obligations or liabilities due to system downtime or failure.

The detail and rigor of the Offeror’s security features and measures.

Subfactor D: Key Personnel and Staffing

The Government will evaluate the qualifications and demonstrated abilities of the personnel the Offeror has identified as Key Personnelresumes submitted. The resumes and other information presented in the Offeror’s proposal, together with information from any other sources available to the Government, will provide the primary input for evaluation of this factor. However, the Government reserves the right to verify the performance on other contracts of Key Personnel, whether or not the contract was identified by the Offeror in its proposal. The Government may query contract references and other end user representatives regarding the experience of proposed Key Personnel and the quality of their performance. The Government will assess the quality of the

Offeror’s organizational, institutional, and command relationships and staffing, retention, and screening policies to accomplish the requirements of this contract.

Subfactor E: Corporate Electronic Auction Experience

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s experience performing similar auction work with the proposed software on projects identified in its proposal is apt to prepare the Offeror for, and enhance the Offeror’s ability to perform, the work contemplated by the SOW, in terms of the nature of the work, its scope, and its complexity. While the experience presented in the Offeror’s proposal will provide the primary input for evaluation of this subfactor, the Government reserves the right to verify the specifics of current or previous contracts or engagements described by the Offeror’s proposal. The Government also reserves the right to consider information from other contracts that the Offeror has performed, if relevant and necessary to do so. Greater consideration will be given to experience that shows the Offeror’s application of technical solutions in successful implementation of systems to programs similar in nature, scope, and complexity to the Commission’s auction program (or that were of greater scope and complexity).

7.1.4 Factor 2: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance within the last five (5) years to determine the quality of that performance and the extent to which it is predictive of success on the current requirements. In this regard, the evaluation will consider the degree to which that performance involves the same or similar work and subject matter as the current effort, in terms of the nature of the work, its scope, and its complexity program (or that were of greater scope and complexity). The Government will consider the Offeror’s record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good workmanship; the Offeror’s record of forecasting and controlling costs; the Offeror’s adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the

Offeror’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; the Offeror’s reporting into databases; the Offeror’s record of integrity and business ethics, and generally, the Offeror’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer. The Government may contact any or all references made available in an

Offeror’s proposal as part of its evaluation. The Government may rely on information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System or may rely on any other credible source of past performance information available to it. The Government will not rely on PPIRS information over three years old and is under no obligation to review all PPIRS information on the Offeror.

Offeror’s with no relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably under this factor.

7.1.5 Factor 3: Price/Cost

The Government will conduct its price analysis using one or more of the techniques specified in FAR 15.404-1(b). The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The

Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).Following evaluation of the non-price/cost factors, the price/cost proposal will be compared to the Technical/ Management Capability proposal for consistency and understanding of the requirement.

Proposals will be evaluated for price realism, completeness, and reasonableness:

Realism: Prices are compatible with the proposed scope of effort and operations reflect reasonable economy and efficiency.

Completeness: All information/ data required by the RFP has been submitted, tracks to the requirements, and support the offer.

Reasonableness: Prices are considered fair under current market conditions and reasonable to the Government.

Each price will be validated by examining the arithmetic accuracy and consistency of the information presented in the proposal.

Offerors proposing that FCC host the software as its software delivery solution will have

$1,000,000 per contract year added to its proposal price for price evaluation purposes.

This amount represents FCC’s estimated cost of hosting the software. If all Offerors propose to have FCC host the software, the Software Delivery Method - Hosting at Off-

Site CLIN will be disregarded for price evaluation purposes.

For the Implementation and Integration – Standard Auction Design and Special Projects

CLINS, the Offeror’s calculated yearly price for the CLIN will be of the sum of all products of multiplying Offeror’s labor rate for each labor category in a given year by the number of hours for the labor category in that year.

The Government reserves the right to require the submission of cost or pricing data, or data other than certified cost or pricing data, in accordance with FAR 15.403, if, after receipt of proposals, such data becomes necessary or prudent to evaluate, and to seasonably include relevant provisions and clauses.

7.2 Basis for Award and Evaluation Process

7.2.1 Basis for Award

The Government will award the contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal, conforming to this solicitation, represents the best value to the Government after evaluation in accordance with the evaluation factors and subfactors stated in this solicitation. The proposal that offers the best value is the proposal that, in the

Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government in response to the requirement. In making this determination, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical/management capabilities than with making an award at the lowest price. However, the Government reserves the right to award the contract to an Offeror whose proposal offers other than the lowest price or whose proposal does not offer the most superior non-price attributes, where doing so achieves the greatest overall benefit for the Government. In determining which proposal offers the best value, the Government may make trade-offs between prices and non-price proposal attributes (including past performance). The Government will consider the price and non-price factor attributes of each proposal and will compare their assessed strengths, weaknesses, risks, advantages, and disadvantages. As the evaluation of non-price factors among the proposals near equality, price becomes a more important factor in the tradeoff analysis. As the evaluation of the price factor among the proposals nears equality, non-price factors become even more important in the tradeoff analysis.

The Government may reject any or all submissions if such action is in the public interest.

The Government reserves the right to allow a firm to cure an informationally incomplete proposal should the Government elect to request revised proposals and the Government may waive minor irregularities in proposals received.

7.2.2 Method of Evaluation

Proposals will first be screened for basic documentary sufficiency. An Offeror that fails to provide in its proposal all of the information required by this solicitation may not be further considered, especially if the Contracting Officer determines that substantial revisions or supplementation to the proposal would be required to permit initial evaluation or if significant errors or omissions in the proposal appear to be due to a lack of diligence or competence of the Offeror.

Offerors should note that deviations from the requirements of the RFP will render the proposal unacceptable, unless: (1) the Government requests revised proposals from participating Offerors (or all potentially interested Offerors) under revised requirements or instructions that relax the involved term, condition, and requirement for all Offerors, or

(2) the Government establishes a competitive range in which the Offeror is included, and the Offeror revises its proposal to comply with the RFP as currently written. Such deviations may exist as proposal qualifications, restrictions, pricing assumptions, or any other declaration, assertion, or tender that contravenes or conflicts with the mandatory requirements of the RFP (including the SOW and instructions to offerors).

Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it has adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements stated in solicitation (including the

Statement of Work). Proposals will be evaluated under the factors and subfactors stated in this solicitation. Non-price factors will be evaluated under adjectival rating schemes.

The price factor will be evaluated but not rated. Evaluation and rating, including assessments of deficiencies, may be revisited on the basis of discussions held or clarifications made. A tradeoff analysis will be conducted and source selection made.