HC102821R0006 AMD 0006.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Add "The Government w ill apply a 1.5 standard deviation analysis using the original costs proposed by offerors to assess the realism of proposed labor rates." to section M2.5.1.1.

2. Add "If price realism is assessed, the Government w ill apply a 1.5 standard deviations analysis using the original prices proposed by offerors to assess the realism of proposed labor rates." to section M2.5.1.2.

3. Add further information on how the Total Compensation Plan w ill be evaluated to section M2.5.4.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

Z 1 2

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 18-Oct-2022

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X HC102821R0006

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

29-Jul-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

18-Oct-2022

CODE

DISA/DITCO-SCOTT-PL83

2300 EAST DRIVE, BUILDING 3600

SCOTT AFB IL 62225-5406

HC1028 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HC102821R0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

(End of Summary of Changes)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1.0. SOURCE SELECTION

M1.1. General.

M1.1.1. Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions. Offerors are required to address all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, security clearance requirements, and technical/management 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.

M1.1.2. Basis for Contract Award. This is a best value trade off 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 DISA Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DARS). These regulations are available electronically at http://acquisition.gov. The Government will select the best overall offeror, based on integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

M1.1.3. Evaluation. The technical proposal should include all information the offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding the offeror’s ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The best value determination will be based on the stated evaluation factors.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the Contracting Officer (KO) determines they are necessary. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed contract cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the proposed contract. In such event, offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established and the KO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

M1.1.4. Evaluation of Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price (which in the case of the Minimum Guarantee Task order, the sample task orders, and the pricing scenarios includes the Base year and all Option Periods, including the 6 month 52.217-8 extension) of the following: the Minimum Guarantee Task Order; the Radio Test Facility (RTF) Engineering and Lab Support Sample Task Order; the Unified Capabilities (UC) Lab Support Sample Task Order; the pricing for the RTF and UC Test Menus; the Consolidated System Administration (SA) Support Sample Task Order; the Defense Healthcare http://acquisition.gov/

Systems (DHS) Sample Task Order; the Federal Background Verification Service (FBVS) Sample Task Order; and the CPFF (with any adjustments made to the most probable cost) and FFP/T&M/LH Pricing Scenarios. The offeror shall submit pricing for the base period and all option periods, including option pricing for an additional six-month period that may be authorized IAW FAR 52.217-8. The pricing proposal should include a separate line item for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. These prices shall be identical to the proposed pricing in the six months prior to expiration of the base period, or the final option period, if option periods are present. The total evaluated price will consist of the contractor’s proposed price for the base period, all option periods, the option pricing for the additional six-month period, and surge pricing if requested. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M1.1.5. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Test, Evaluation, and Certification (TEC) II effort; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

M1.1.6. Rejection of Offers. The Government may reject any proposal that takes exception to the terms of the solicitation. The Government reserves the right, but is not obligated, to review prices for realism. Note that unreasonably high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

M2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

M2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Technical/Management

Subfactor 1: Program Management

Subfactor 2: Test and Evaluation Enabling Capabilities

Subfactor 3: Menu Services for Standards Compliance Test and Evaluation

Subfactor 4: Federal Background Verification Services (FBVS) Sample Task Order

Subfactor 5: Defense Healthcare System (DHS) Sample Task Order

Factor 2: Small Business Participation Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Cost/Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: technical/management is more important than past performance, which is more important than small business participation. Within the technical/management factor, all subfactors are of equal importance. This acquisition will be conducted using the best value tradeoff process as described in FAR 15.101-1(a)(b)(c). The best value tradeoff will place all non-cost evaluation factors (Factors 1, 2 and 3) when combined, as more important than cost or price (Factor 4).

M2.2. Technical/Management Factor.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s responses to particular PWS and TO requirements. The technical/management Factor will be evaluated using a combined technical/management rating and risk rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table M1.

TABLE M1. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description BLUE Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

TABLE M1.a DEFINITIONS

Strength An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

Significant Weaknesses

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

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.

Uncertainty Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal/quotation for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., there is more than one way to interpret the proposal/quotation or inconsistencies in the proposal/quotation indicating there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

M2.2.1 Technical Management Detailed Description.

Subfactor 1: Program Management.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s:

a) Proposed program management approach for ensuring fully-qualified personnel, in accordance with the labor category descriptions with respect to education, experience, and training, are provided in accordance with the timelines defined in the PWS.

The approach shall address how the Offeror will meet the requirements of PWS 6.4.2. Generic resumes and labor categories will be reviewed as part of this evaluation. Resumes provided need to be generic and not include any names of individuals. (Reference TEC II Services PWS 6.4.2 and Pricing Templates listed labor categories).

b) Proposed methodology for meeting the Technical Performance

Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) in the Offeror’s Quality Control Plan. (Reference TEC II Services PWS 7.2.1.).

c) Proposed processes to ensure effective oversight and administration of the contract task orders. (Reference TEC II Services PWS 6.4.3).

Subfactor 2: Test and Evaluation Enabling Capabilities

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's:

a) Proposed technical solution to use the Science Based Test Design methods, automation, and instrumentation to support various forms of test and evaluation (Reference TEC II Services PWS 6.1 T&E Planning Paragraph).

b) Proposed technical solution for supporting software installation, upgrades, and removal and information assurance for the DoD Enterprise Test Framework (DETF) SA, Tech Writer, CM and Network Support Task Order (minimum guarantee task order) (Reference DEFT SA, Tech Writer, CM and Network Support TO

PWS 6.2.3, 6.2.4).

c) Proposed technical solution for the Consolidated System Administration Sample Task Order (Reference Consolidated System Administration TO PWS 6.2.1 a., b., and g.).

Subfactor 3: Menu Services for Standards Compliance Test and Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical solution for the following Menu Based Testing Areas:

a) Radio Test Facility (RTF) Engineering & Lab Support Sample Task Order (Reference TEC II Services PWS 6.1.4.4 and )

b) Unified Capabilities (UC) Test and Evaluation (T&E) Services and Facility Support Sample Task Order (Reference TEC II Services

PWS 6.1.6.1)

Subfactor 4: Federal Background Verification Services (FBVS) Sample Task Order

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical solution for using DEVSECOPS techniques, automation, and instrumentation to ensure rigor and efficiency in test and evaluation support of the FBVS Sample Task Order. (Reference FBVS Sample

TO PWS 6.2)

Subfactor 5: Defense Healthcare System (DHS) Sample Task Order

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical solution for using test and evaluation techniques in support of multiple test objectives (i.e. OT, IOP, Cyber) to support the DHS Sample Task Order. (Reference DHS Sample TO PWS 6.2.2, 6.2.3, and 6.3.1)

M2.3. Small Business Participation Factor.

The Government will evaluate small business participation and commitment as measured against the Total Acquisition Value (TAV). As a part of this evaluation, the Government will consider each Offeror’s commitment to use small business:

a. The Offeror must demonstrate a plan to meet the minimum objectives as identified in L6.1 for the participation of small business firms (including those in socioeconomic categories as defined in FAR Part 19) in terms of the percentage and dollars of the TAV, or the Offeror must provide a sufficient justification for its failure to do so.

b. The Offeror must describe the nature of the commitment with each small business, including the subcontract type.

c. The Offeror must describe its use of small businesses in terms of the type and complexity of work to be performed as well as a description of the type of agreements and/or commitments to use small business firms under the contract.

d. The Offeror must explain the specific initiatives and strategies that will be used under the contract to enhance small business utilization and capabilities.

e. The Offeror must demonstrate the proper flow down of requirements, process management, and performance assessments of small business utilization at the first tier.

f. The Offeror must explain the methodology used to arrive at the proposed participation percentages, if different from the minimum objectives.

The Government will use the following ratings for the utilization of Small Business Participation:

Table M2. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION RATINGS

Adjectival Rating

Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

The Government will assess the Offerors’ submissions to this factor for adequacy of the proposed Small Business Participation Plan. To be acceptable, the Offeror shall provide a complete and responsive small business participation plan that considers all federal designated small business categories. In accordance with 13 C.F.R. 125.3(g)(3), a small business concern submitting an offer will be rated Acceptable for this Small Business Participation Factor, even if they elect not to submit any information in connection with this factor.

M2.4. Past Performance Factor.

The Government will evaluate past performance to determine the offeror's ability to successfully perform the TEC II Services contract. This evaluation is based on the offeror's record of recent, relevant, and quality of present and past performance information that pertain to this effort.

Past performance information may be obtained from any 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; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

M2.4.1. 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 had at least six

(6) months of the efforts performance completed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M2.4.2. Relevancy Assessment. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed as either relevant or not relevant. The past performance information submission forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror's history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel, and extent of subcontracting/teaming. References provided that are not for similar product/services/support, but similar in other common aspects listed above will not be considered relevant.

M2.4.3. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent/relevant past performance reference reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for acceptability or unacceptability. 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 problems, 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 quality assessment consists of an evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, and CPARS information, and may also include interviews with Government customers, other sources known to the Government, and if applicable, commercial clients.

M2.4.5. Overall Past Performance Rating. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an overall assessment rating of acceptable, neutral, or unacceptable. The resulting rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral" rating for the past performance factor.

TABLE M6- PAST PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Neutral An offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will receive a neutral rating.

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

M2.5. Cost Factor.

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based on the total cost/price proposed for the DOD Enterprise Test Framework (DETF) Minimum Guarantee Task Order (FFP), the Radio Test Facility (RTF) Engineering and Lab Support Sample Task Order, the Unified Capabilities (UC) Lab Support Sample Task Order, the RTF and UC Test Menus, the Consolidated System Administration (SA) Sample Task Order, the Defense Healthcare Systems (DHS) Sample Task Order, the Federal Background Verification Service (FBVS) Sample Task Order, the CPFF Pricing Scenario, and the FFP/T&M/LH Pricing Scenario.

M2.5.1 Total Evaluated Price. For evaluation purposes, the Cost/Price team will calculate a total evaluated cost/price by totaling the sum of the total proposed cost/price for the following:

a. DOD Enterprise Test Framework (DETF) Minimum Guarantee Task Order (FFP) based on the proposed pricing in response to DETF TO PWS. The period of performance is in accordance with the PWS.

b. Radio Test Facility (RTF) Lab Services Sample Task Order based on the proposed pricing in response to RTF Lab Services Sample Task Order Statement of Work (SOW).

c. Unified Capabilities (UC) Lab Services Sample Task Order based on the proposed pricing in response to UC Lab Services Sample Task Order Statement of Work (SOW).

d. RFT and UC Test Menus based on the proposed pricing in response to RTF and

UC Test Menu pricing templates.

e. Consolidated System Administration (SA) Sample Task Order based on the proposed pricing in response to SA Sample Task Order PWS.

f. Defense Healthcare Systems (DHS) Sample Task Order based on the proposed pricing in response to DHS Sample Task Order PWS.

g. Federal Background Verification Service (FBVS) Sample Task Order based on the proposed pricing in response to FBVS Sample Task Order PWS.

h. CPFF Pricing Scenario (with any adjustments made to the proposed cost to determine the most probable cost) by applying Government estimated labor hours for each year of contract performance to each offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor rates for each labor category at both Government and Contractor sites. The Government estimated labor hours is the Governments best estimate for the labor needed for this IDIQ. Depending on future task orders, the Government may need more or less than the hours estimated. The hours estimated for this IDIQ does not obligate the Government to acquire all of the hours estimated. The period of performance for evaluation purposes is for one

(1) 4-year base period, one (1) 5-year option period, one (1) 1-year option period (option period 2), and a 6 month option to extend services IAW FAR 52.217-8.

i. FFP/T&M/LH Pricing Scenario by applying Government estimated labor hours for each year of contract performance to each offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor rates for each labor category at both Government and Contractor sites. The Government estimated labor hours is the Governments best estimate for the labor needed for this IDIQ. Depending on future task orders, the Government may need more or less than the hours estimated. The hours estimated for this IDIQ does not obligate the Government to acquire all of the hours estimated.

Although the estimated labor hours used for evaluation purposes will not be provided to the offerors until after award, the education, experience, and training for each of the labor categories is provided in section C2 of this solicitation to allow the offeror to effectively price their proposal. The period of performance for evaluation purposes is for one (1) 4-year base period, one (1) 5-year option period, one (1) 1-year option period (option period 2), and a 6-month option to extend services IAW FAR 52.217- 8.

52.217-8 authorizes the Government to require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. The pricing proposal should include a separate line item for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. These prices shall be identical to the proposed pricing in the six-months prior to expiration of the base period, or the final option period, if option periods are present. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M2.5.1.1. CPFF Pricing Scenario. The cost portion of the proposals will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if they are complete, reasonable, realistic, and balanced. The Government will determine completeness of the Offeror’s proposal by verifying that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and costs are presented within the CPFF Pricing Scenario Template provided in Section L, Attachment L7H. The probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. Any proposed fixed-fee will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-4 and DFARS 215.404-4. The Government will apply a 1.5 standard deviation analysis using the original costs proposed by offerors to assess the realism of proposed labor rates.

M2.5.1.2. FFP/T&M/LH Pricing Scenario and DETF Minimum Guarantee Task Order.

The price portion of the proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if they are complete, reasonable, and balanced. The Government will determine completeness of the Offeror’s proposal by verifying that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and costs are presented within the mandatory DETF Minimum Guarantee Task Order (FFP) Pricing Template provided in Section L, (Attachment L7A) and the FFP/T&M/LH Pricing Scenario Template (Attachment L7I). The Government reserves the right, but is not obligated, to perform a price realism analysis. If price realism is assessed, the Government will apply a 1.5 standard deviations analysis using the original prices proposed by offerors to assess the realism of proposed labor rates.

M2.5.2 Travel/Other Direct Costs (ODCs). Due to the likely inability of any offeror to accurately estimate travel, material/equipment purchases, and other ODCs associated with this requirement, the Government is providing plug numbers to be used by all offerors in the pricing templates when proposing such ODCs. The proposed ODC amounts for travel/material/equipment/other ODCs shall be the EXACT amounts listed in the pricing templates. Any indirect costs associated with travel/material/equipment/Other ODCs shall be included in the plug numbers. A proposal that fails to bid the EXACT plug numbers as delineated above may be excluded from further consideration.

M2.5.3. Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable proposal, the price of one or more items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M2.5.4. Total Compensation Plan.

The Government's review of the offeror's Total Compensation Plan will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Offerors with unacceptable Total Compensation Plans will be ineligible for award. In order to assess whether Total Compensation Plans are acceptable, the Government will conduct a risk assessment to evaluate whether the plan demonstrates the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

In order to evaluate the Total Compensation Plan, rates from the incumbent contract and salary survey data from the Economic Research Institute (ERI), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) utilizing the Employment Cost Index (ECI) and Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data will be used. The TEC-II labor categories (LCATs) will be mapped to the same or similar LCATs in the ERI database based upon the TEC-II LCAT job description and the job description for the LCAT in the ERI database. Since many of the LCATs in the solicitation have a “sliding scale” of educational and job experience requirements (for example: LCAT #3, Technical Advisor could have a Doctorate degree and 4yrs. experience, a Masters (MBA) degree with 10 yrs. experience, or a Bachelor degree with 16 yrs. Experience), the evaluation will utilize the 75th percentile of the ERI data for a Doctorate degree, ERI mean for an MBA, and the 25th percentile for a BA and then find the average between all three data points to derive a benchmark Direct Labor rate. These benchmark direct labor rates will be utilized to determine if the Direct Labor rate proposed by the Offeror reflects a sound management approach, the Offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements, and the Offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. In the event a LCAT does not have a “sliding scale” of educational and job experience requirements in its description, the years’ experience that is stated will be utilized.

To determine the benchmark Direct Labor rate when an associate degree or high school diploma is required, the 10th percentile of the ERI data will be utilized.

M2.6. Organizational and Consultant Conflict of Interest (OCCI) Mitigation Plan.

The Government’s review of the offeror’s OCCI Mitigation plan will consider:

a) the degree to which the offeror addressed OCCI concerns,

b) the offeror’s approach for mitigating OCCI issues,

c) the adequacy of its OCCI training and oversight programs,

d) the adequacy of its procedures, and

e) whether or not the offeror’s OCCI plan and/or mitigation strategy complies with all regulatory and statutory requirements, including FAR Subpart 9.5.

The above elements and the OCCI plan will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

An acceptable plan is one that addresses items a-e above and does not present any actual or potential conflicts of interest, or adequately mitigates any such conflicts.

M2.7. Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan.

The Government will assess the adequacy of an organization-wide SCRM plan to identify threats to the supply chain, and provide mitigation strategies that will protect the Government's interest.

The Government's review of the offeror's SCRM Plan will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. In order to be acceptable, an offeror shall demonstrate that they have visibility into their supply chain for critical components, understands the risks to that supply chain, and has implemented or plans to implement risk mitigations.

SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1.0. SOURCE SELECTION

M1.1.2. Basis for Contract Award. This is a best value trade off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFAR...

M1.1.5. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Test, Evaluation, and Certification (TEC) II effort; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

M1.1.6. Rejection of Offers. The Government may reject any proposal that takes exception to the terms of the solicitation. The Government reserves the right, but is not obligated, to review prices for realism. Note that unreasonably high proposed pr...

M2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

M2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

M2.2. Technical/Management Factor.

Subfactor 2: Test and Evaluation Enabling Capabilities

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's:

Subfactor 3: Menu Services for Standards Compliance Test and Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical solution for the following Menu Based Testing Areas:

Subfactor 4: Federal Background Verification Services (FBVS) Sample Task Order

Subfactor 5: Defense Healthcare System (DHS) Sample Task Order

M2.4. Past Performance Factor.