Attach 5 - Section M (Amendment 1).pdf

Intelligence Support Services – Joint III H92402-24-R-0001

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

M.1.1 Best Value Introduction: This section outlines the criteria the Government will use to evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities and proposal for the Intelligence Support Services – Joint III IDIQ. The Government will compare each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. This is a competitive best value trade-off source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215 and Special Operations Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 5615.

M.1.2 Evaluation Ratings Assignment: The Government will evaluate all proposals received against Volume 1 Qualifying Criteria, on a Pass or Fail basis. For Volume 2, Management & Volume 3, Transition, the Government will use the combined technical (color)/risk rating technique for each factor individually. Volume 4, Past and Present Performance, will be assigned a Confidence Rating, and Volume 5, Price/Cost, will not be given a color rating but will be assigned a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and Most Probable Cost (MPC).

Factors are in the following descending order of importance:

Factor 1 – Management Factor 2 – Transition Factor 3 – Past and Present Performance Factor 4 – Cost and Price

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 1 and 2, when combined, are “significantly more important” than Factor 3. All evaluation factors other than Factor 4, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4.

The Government is willing to award to a higher priced Offeror that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to this solicitation. As proposals approach equality across all Factors, Factor 4 plays a more important role in the Best Value Award Decision.

Evaluation Item Factor Evaluation Qualifying Criteria

Pass/Fail

Management Factor 1 Combined Technical/Risk Management Plan Element 1

Key Personnel Element 2 System Security Plan Element 3 Transition Factor 2 Combined Technical/Risk Past and Present Performance Factor 3 Confidence Rating Cost and Price Factor 4 Total Evaluated Price/Most

Probable Cost (All Years)

M.1.2.1 Management and Transition, Factor 1 & 2 Evaluation Methods. While the Government will conduct evaluations at the element level, elements will not be assigned a color/risk rating. Therefore, there will not be a roll-up of elements to create an overall rating for each Factor. Color/risk rating will occur at the Factor level only.

Furthermore, there will not be a roll-up of all Factors to create an overall proposal color/risk rating. Factors 1 and 2 will receive separate color/ risk ratings and stand independently.

Factors 1 and 2 will be evaluated using the Combined Technical/Risk Rating descriptions in Table 1.

Technical Risk definitions referenced in Table 1 are defined in Table 2.

The Technical Evaluation terms referenced in Table 1 are defined in Table 3.

SECTION M - Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

SECTION M-Table 2. Technical Risk Definitions Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that cause an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

SECTION M-Table 3. Technical Rating Evaluation Terms Term Definition Significant Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.1.3 Basis of Award: Award will be made to the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described above, including a tradeoff process. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.

M.1.4 Number of Offerors to be Selected: The Government anticipates selecting one Offeror for the Intelligence Support Services—Joint III IDIQ award. The Government reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to award no, one, or multiple awardees, depending on the quality of the proposals, the availability of funding, program risks, the continued existence of the requirement and other Government needs.

M.1.5 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is assessed to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically low in price when assessed according to Proposal Analysis Techniques prescribed at FAR 15.404-1, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect lack of competence, failure to comprehend the complexity of the program, or presents an unacceptable risk of performance.

M.1.5.1 Rejection of Incomplete Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that fails to provide all the required information listed in the solicitation.

M.1.6 Proposal Evaluation: 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 Volumes or Factors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exceptions to the solicitation's terms and conditions must be clearly conveyed to the Government and fully explained and justified.

M.1.7 Competitive Range Determination: In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), the Government may (but is not obligated to) make a competitive range determination. If made, the determination will be based on an initial evaluation of the Factors listed in M.1.2. The competitive range will include only those proposals most highly rated after initial evaluation and may further be limited for efficiency purposes, if it is deemed to be in the Government’s best interest.

M.1.7.1 The Government will base the initial evaluation of proposals and the initial determination of the competitive range upon a review of the submitted proposals, and consider any information exchanged during communications as defined in FAR 15.306 if necessary. The Government will discontinue evaluation of any proposal which is not considered to be in the competitive range after initial evaluations. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

The Government reserves the right in its sole discretion to award without discussions if the evaluation shows that it is in the Government’s best interest. If an award without discussions decision is made by the SSA, a competitive range will not be established, discussions will not be conducted, nor will Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) be requested. For this reason, it is highly encouraged that an Offeror submits its best offer initially to the Government in response to the proposal (vice waiting for FPRs).

M.1.8 Discussions: When warranted, the Government intends to engage in discussions (written and/or oral) with all Offerors within the competitive range. The intent of these discussions is to obtain the best value based upon the requirements and evaluation Factors set forth in Section M. The scope and extent of discussions are at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, and the Contracting Officer will tailor discussions to each Offeror’s proposal. The Government may remove an Offeror from the competitive range at any point during discussions, whether all

SECTION M-Table 3. Technical Rating Evaluation Terms Term Definition Deficiency

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.

material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, if the Offeror is no longer considered to be one of the most highly rated. When the Government concludes discussions, it will give all Offerors within the competitive range the opportunity to submit a final revised proposal by the date and time identified by the Contracting Officer.

M.1.9 Final Proposal Revisions: If discussions are conducted (see M.1.8. above), Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP. Offerors are advised that unsupported FPR responses may lower the overall proposal evaluation. Offerors are further advised that any information generated in the course of discussions must be incorporated into the FPR; the Government will only consider the Offeror’s FPR for final evaluation purposes.

M.1.10 Offer Acceptance: A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer whether there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received from the Offeror before award.

M.2 VOLUME 1 – QUALIFYING CRITERIA.

Information submitted for the qualifying criteria in accordance with Section L.2 will be evaluated to determine if the proposal meets the requirements listed in the subsections below to “pass.” If the Offeror fails any of the qualifying criteria, it will “fail” to qualify and in accordance with M.1.6 be removed from the competition. The Offerors will be assessed as “pass” if the minimum requirements defined below have been met:

M.2.1 Contract Forms and Certifications: To receive a Pass rating, the Offeror shall provide:

a. Section 1 – Proposal cover letter or proposal cover page (include names, office phone and facsimile numbers, if applicable, cell phone numbers, and e-mail addresses for individuals authorized to conduct negotiation, any higher network emails (if possessed) and any actual or potential OCIs).

b. Section 2 – A conformed contract copy from this RFP with digital signature of an official authorized to contractually bind the Offeror in Block 17 of the SF 33. The Offeror must complete the following sections within the RFP for these criteria:

− Solicitation, Offer and Award (Standard Form 33), Blocks 12-18 − All Section K Representations, Certifications, and Disclosures − All amendments posted to SAM.gov

M.2.2 Facility Clearance. To receive a Pass rating, the Offeror (to include all members of a Joint Venture) shall provide proof of final cleared TOP SECRET Facility Clearance as accredited by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). The Offeror or one member of a Joint Venture provides proof of SECRET storage of information. The Offeror meets all the requirements of the DD254 showing proof of clearance, storage, etc.

M.2.3 SDVOSB Registration/SBA All-Small Program/Joint Venture Agreement/Joint Venture Agreement. To receive a Pass rating the Prime Offeror must be registered as a Service-Connected Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business under NAICS 541990 on the System for Award Management website and must be certified as a SDVOSB by the SBA. The final decision regarding any Offerors' SDVOSB status shall reside jointly with the Veterans’ Administration and the Small Business Administration. For Offerors using the SBA Mentor-Protege Program, the Prime Offeror must submit SBA approval of the Mentor-Protégé Agreement with their proposal. All Joint Ventures must provide a signed copy of their agreement with proposal submission.

M.2.4 Acceptable Accounting System. To receive a Pass rating the Prime Offeror (to include all members of a Joint Venture) must have an acceptable accounting system at time of proposal submission as determined by DCAA/DCMA or another Federal Government Agency or provide, as part of the proposal, enough information for the Contracting Officer to determine that the Prime Vendor has an acceptable accounting system in accordance with DFARS 252.242-7006(c).

M.2.5 Cybersecurity Compliance. To receive a Pass rating the Offeror (to include all members of a JV) must submit a NIST Cyber Assessment Tool Certification that demonstrates a full passing cybersecurity rating of 110 controls in accordance with NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 guidelines.

M.2.6 Defense Base Act Coverage. To receive a Pass rating the Offeror shall provide proof of historical DBA insurance for suboptimal locations or a quote from a DBA Insurance Provider based on the twenty (20) FTE for operations in Iraq for 180 days, demonstrating the ability to secure coverage despite it being a suboptimal location.

The prospective locations for the project include declared theaters of active armed conflict, high Department of State hardship, and hazardous duty areas. Expected locations will be communicated to the awardee.

M.2.7 Line of Credit. To receive a Pass rating the Offeror must have a combined line of credit or reserved liquid capital that meets the minimum of at least 25% of their proposed initial year costs.

M.3 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT

M.3.1 Factor 2 Element 1 – Management Plan. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s Management Plan demonstrates well defined responsibilities and sound business management practices and processes to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.1.1 The Government will evaluate the management approach for managing members of a Joint Venture and/or subcontractors to include determining what support/services the prime is providing versus what subcontractors are providing.

M.3.1.2 The Government will evaluate the approach for managing different working sites to include personnel appointed to act as site(s) lead/manager(s), who oversee workload completion, and personnel management.

M.3.1.3 The Government will evaluate the approach to problem solving and examples of meeting SOW requirements. A feasible, realistic Management Plan that mitigates disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, and/or the need for increased Government oversight may lower risk of successful contract performance. The Offeror’s Management Plan may be incorporated into any resultant contract.

M.3.1.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to recruiting and retaining personnel. The Government will further evaluate the extent to which the plan demonstrates an understanding of how to successfully turnover personnel on a rotational basis (e.g., termination, sickness, retirement), as well as unforeseen circumstances during performance of the contract while minimizing degradation in services and maintaining an 85% or above fill rate.

M.3.1.5 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror has infrastructure, and established procedures to insert, withdraw and support/manage CONUS and OCONUS deployed employees

M.3.1.6 The Government will evaluate the processes, procedures and approach for monitoring and maintaining costs.

M.3.2 Element 2: Key Personnel The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s process and corporate commitment for recruiting and retaining key personnel:

M. 3.2.1. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Key Personnel identified in the SOW resume and underlying experience demonstrate possession of the required qualifications in accordance with Attachment J-1, Statement of Work. The Government will further consider whether, and to what extent, the Key Personnel identified in the SOW resume and underlying experience exceeds those required qualifications.

M.3.3 Element 3: System Security Plan. Offerors that exhibit a more fully integrated System Security Plan (SSP) summary that is specific to their proposal and not a reiteration of NIST-SP 800-171 Revision 2 may be rated more favorably. A SSP that implements a greater number of safeguards with a full-compliance score of 110, as described in the NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Methodology, represents a lower risk to the Government, and will potentially be rated more favorably. Offerors who exhibit a SSP that lacks compliance with multiple elements of the NIST SP 800-171 standards, represents risk to the Government, and may be assigned risk and rated less favorably.

M.4 VOLUME 3 – FACTOR 2 – TRANSITION

M.4.1 Transition Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s transition plan’s demonstration of the ability to successfully execute a contract phase-in while minimizing negative impacts to operations. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s plan, to include the timeline, demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements for transition, consideration of incumbent workforce capture, capacity of organic workforce, and identification of appropriate risk mitigation strategies. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror is providing the support/services during the Transition versus what subcontractors are providing. The Government will determine whether the proposal meets the requirements defined in section L.4 and to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements per the definitions contained within Table 1. The Offeror’s transition plan will become part of any resultant contract.

M.4.1.1 Workforce Transition. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s transition plan for incumbent capture, organic workforce, and/or new hires is realistic and feasible. A proposal that demonstrates how the Offeror expects to capture a large incumbent workforce and/or how its organic workforce is sufficient for a smooth transition represents, to the Government, a lower risk to transition than a proposal that primarily relies on new hires.

M.4.1.2 Event Driven Timeline The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s phase-in/transition management, processes, and procedures, and risk mitigation strategies leading to assumption of full contractual responsibility no later than 90 days after contract award. Proposals that address the Government’s requirements and demonstrate and support a realistic, feasible, integrated transition schedule to meet the full FTE requirement may represent a lower risk to contract performance and a more favorable rating may result. Proposals that meet a transition plan of less than 90 days may receive a more favorable rating.

M.4.1.3. Security Procedures, and Logistics: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to meet all security requirements, including facility and personnel, procedures, and policies. It will assess the effectiveness of proposed risk mitigation techniques, the flexibility and practicality of logistical plans for moving personnel into both CONUS and OCONUS locations, and the Offeror’s capability to provide continuous, reliable real-time intelligence support to USSOCOM. The evaluation will focus on the thoroughness, feasibility, and adaptability of the Offeror’s plans and strategies.

M.5 -- VOLUME 4 – FACTOR 3 -- PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE:

M.5.1. The Past and Present Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s (to include proposed subcontractor(s)) demonstrated record of performance in providing services that meet users’ needs. Past and Present Performance evaluation will focus on how well the Offeror performed or is performing on other recent and relevant efforts. For proposed subcontractor(s), evaluation will focus solely on work that the subcontractor is proposed to perform under this contract.

M.5.2 The Government will conduct a review to ensure all information requested has been provided. The government will conduct a review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the current requirement utilizing the recency and relevancy criteria outlined in Section L.

M.5.3 The Government will evaluate all efforts submitted that meet the recency criteria of 3 years with at least 6 months of performance. Only those that meet the recency criteria will be assessed for relevancy.

M.5.4 Relevancy will be assessed using the matrix found in Attachment J-4b: PP Relevancy Matrix. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any aspect may result in an overall low confidence rating.

Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include all somewhat relevant past efforts regardless of perceived evaluation rating. Each contract submitted by the Offeror to substantiate Past Performance will be rated for relevancy by the Government and a rating of Highly Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant will be assigned.

M.5.5 For those efforts determined Somewhat Relevant or higher, a performance evaluation will be conducted based on the data gathered by interviews with those references provided in the Offeror’s Past/Present Performance Information Sheets, Offeror’s Past Performance Questionnaires or as available through the Contract Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS) or similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers, or other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. Offerors should note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources; however, the Government is not limited to these resources. A performance rating will be established for each effort for which a performance evaluation is conducted utilizing the same performance rating definitions contained within the CPARS.

M.5.6 Once all data has been gathered, the Government will assign a confidence rating considering the Offeror’s team’s overall recent/relevant performance record. The confidence ratings with definitions that will be utilized are contained within Table 4 below.

SECTION M – Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessments

M.5.7 The assessment will be used to determine the probability of successful accomplishment of this effort. The Government’s assessment will focus on the Past and Present Performance of the Offeror (to include all members of a Joint Venture) and its proposed sub-contractors.

M.5.8 Past and Present Performance evaluation will consider Past and Present Performance information regarding predecessor companies and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

M.6 VOLUME 5 – FACTOR 4 – COST and PRICE.

M.6.1 The Government anticipates adequate price competition. Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in FAR 15.404. Accordingly, the analytical techniques and procedures prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 for evaluating Offeror’s proposal may be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the

SECTION M - Table 4. Past 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.

costs are fair, reasonable, and/or realistic. The cost realism analysis will be performed to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. The most probable cost (MPC) may be determined by adjusting (for purposes of evaluation only) each Offeror’s proposed cost, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis to ensure a realistic cost.

*NOTE: The Government may use external sources of information in performing its cost evaluation to include, but not limited to, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Department of Labor, Department of State, DCAA, or DCMA. This DOES NOT preclude the Offeror from submitting supporting documentation for its rates proposed.

M.6.2. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Cost - Price Proposal as calculated in Attachment J-3, Pricing Template based on the (1) Total Price, (2) completeness, (3) balance, (4) reasonableness, and (5) realism. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Price will not receive a color rating or score; however, the Offeror’s MPC will be used for Program Management/Technical input for award decision.

M.6.2.1 The TEP/MPC will consist of the sum of CLIN 0001 Labor and CLIN 0002 ODC/Travel for the full 5-year ordering period and 5-year ordering period option (10 years of performance).

M.6.2.2 Completeness. The Government will determine if all options, labor categories, rates, fees, etc. are priced;

and will determine compliance with the price preparations instructions. All Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of the data and any associated formulas/calculations.

M.6.2.3. Balance. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices are significantly unbalanced, as defined under FAR 15.404-1(g). In accordance with 52.215-1(f)(8), “Instructions to Offeror- Competitive Acquisition,” the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more-line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.6.2.4. Reasonableness. All proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness per FAR 15.305 using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed Costs/Prices in accordance with the definitions in FAR 31.201-3. A price is considered reasonable if it does not exceed what would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Adequate price competition may not be the sole technique in determining price reasonableness.

M.6.2.5. Realism. The cost realism analysis will be performed to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. For prices and costs to be realistic, the cost elements must be realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and be consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. The Government will evaluate cost realism in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). Results of the analysis may be used in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations. The MPC may be determined by adjusting (for purposes of evaluation only) each Offeror’s proposed cost, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis to ensure a realistic cost.

M.6.3 Other Pricing Considerations: Any inconsistences between technical and price, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and/or its ability to perform the required services. Offerors are encouraged to provide sufficient detail for the Government to determine fair and reasonableness in the developmental of the MPC. Unrealistically low estimates may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the grounds that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or that it has made an unrealistic proposal. The burden of proof of credibility rests with the Offeror, and the numbers must be verifiable. If the Government determines an Offeror’s price to be inexplicably low, that Offeror may be eliminated from the competition without further discussion.