Attchment 17 RFP_Supplemental Section 5 - Evaluation Factors for Award.docx

UNCLASSIFIED

HM047626R0018 HRM II RFP Supplemental Section 5 – Evaluation Factors for Award

5.0 Basis of Award:

(A) The Government intends to award a single award contract to a responsible Offeror in accordance with FAR 9.104-1. To determine contract award, the Government will evaluate offers received under this solicitation and select a single Offeror whose proposal conforms to this solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the Government (FAR 15.101), price and non-price factors considered. The tradeoff process (FAR 15.101-1) will be used by the Source Selection Authority. Best value tradeoff can occur at the factor and/or sub-factor level. The Government will evaluate offers received under this solicitation to determine which proposal represents the best value to the Government based on the evaluation criteria stated below.

(B) The Government reserves the right in its sole discretion to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, the availability of funding, program risks, and the continued existence of the requirement and other Government needs.

(C) Award will be made on a best-value tradeoff basis using Factors 1 through 5 below. OCI will be reviewed separately as an eligibility/responsibility matter.

(E) Only proposals that satisfy all applicable gate criteria, including Security, Small Business Participation Plan, and OCI eligibility requirements, will be eligible for consideration in the best-value tradeoff.

5.1 Evaluation Procedures

The Government will review proposals to ensure they materially and substantially comply with the proposal submittal instructions as delineated in Section 4.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors in accordance with FAR 52.212-1 (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from the standpoint of price, technical/management, and all other factors. However, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c) and (d), the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions if the CO later determines them to be necessary and in the best interest of the Government.

Offerors are required to make their proposals valid for a period of 200 days from the date established for receipt of proposals.

5.2 Compliance Procedures

The Government will perform a compliance review as a Pass/Fail, based on Attachment 14, HRM II Compliance checklist. The proposal volumes will be reviewed by the Government to ensure it complies with the proposal submittal instructions before advancing into the proposal evaluation stage. Failure to meet any of the compliance requirements will result in the Offeror being removed from the competition. The Offeror will be promptly notified by the CO in writing with the reasons why the proposal will not be further considered. Proposals, based on the compliance review, deemed compliant with the proposal submittal instructions shall be reviewed as ‘Pass’ and shall advance for evaluation against the Factors below. Rejection of a proposal on this basis does not constitute creation of a “competitive range.”

5.3 Competitive Range Determination

If the CO determines that discussions are in its best interest of the Government, then the Government will make a competitive range determination in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). The competitive range will include only those proposals most highly rated after initial evaluation of the written proposals. After evaluating all proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2), the CO may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. In such case, the CO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. The CO will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a pre-award debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors considered in the competitive range will be notified.

5.1.1 Discussions

Following the competitive range determination, the Government will hold written and/or oral discussions with all Offerors within the competitive range. The scope and extent of the discussions are at the discretion of the CO, and the CO will tailor discussions to each Offeror’s proposal. During these discussions, the Government will discuss at a minimum deficiency, significant weaknesses, and/or adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The Government may remove an Offeror from the competitive range at any point during discussions, whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, if the Offeror’s proposal 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 (FRP) by the date and time identified by the CO.

5.3.2 Final Evaluation

The Government will evaluate each of the FRPs to select an Offeror for award. The evaluation criteria used in this evaluation will be the same as those used in the initial evaluation or as otherwise amended.

5.4 Post–Award Briefings

Offerors, including those that remained in the competitive range if discussions were conducted, will be notified of the award decision after evaluation of FPRs, and award to the successful Offeror. Debriefing requests shall be in writing and received by the CO within three (3) days after the date the Offeror receives the contract award notification in accordance with FAR 15.506 and DoD Class Deviation-Enhanced Post-award Debriefing Rights (DARS 2018-00011, 22 Mar 2018), unless the Offeror requested and received a pre-award debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

5.5 Evaluation Criteria Factors/Sub-factors and Relative Order of Importance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal against the following Factors and Sub-factors, as specified in Table 5-1.

Factor 3, Small Business Participation Plan, offerors who are rated as Fail/Unacceptable will not receive further consideration for evaluation or award.

Factor 4, Security, will be rated as a Pass if all of the Security subfactors are rated as Pass. The Security Factor will be rated as a Fail if one or more of the subfactors is rated as Fail. Offerors who fail the Security Factor will not receive further consideration for evaluation or award.

Offerors with unresolved or unmitigable OCI concerns will be ineligible for award.

Table 5-1: HRM II Evaluation Factors, Sub-Factors, and Relative Importance

Factors

Sub-Factors

Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach

Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor 2.

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 2 is significantly less important than Factor 1.

Factor 3: Security

Sub-Factor 3.2: Personnel Security Clearance (PCL)/Top Secret (TS) Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access

Sub-Factor 3.3: Security Plan

Sub-Factor 3.4: Cybersecurity Hygiene

Sub-Factor 3.5: Supply Chain Risk

Factor 4: Small Business Participation Plan

Factor 4 is Pass/Fail

Factor 5: Price

All non-price factors when combined, are more important than Price.

The evaluation will assess proposals against the stated criteria and document strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies using Table 5-2.

Table 5-2: Degrees of Strengths and Weaknesses

Significant Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be significantly advantageous to the Government during contract performance (or may significantly decrease the risk of unsuccessful contract performance).

Moderate Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be moderately advantageous to the Government during contract performance (and/or may moderately decrease the risk of unsuccessful contract performance).

Slight Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be slightly advantageous to the Government during contract performance (and/or may slightly decrease the risk of unsuccessful contract performance).

Meets the Standard

(MTS)

Offeror’s approach meets the standard. No strengths or weaknesses can be identified.

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

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

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

An overall adjectival/color ratings will be assigned to Factor 1 in accordance with Table 5-3, based on the quality of the proposed approach and associated performance risk.

Table 5-3: Combined Technical/Management Risk Ratings

Evaluation Criteria Descriptions

(A) Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach

This factor evaluates the quality and extent to which the proposal provides evidence that the Offeror has a thorough technical/management approach understanding and capability to fulfill the HRM II requirements by proposing solutions and approaches that demonstrate sound technical practices in order to achieve the objectives of the HRM II acquisition.

The following sub-factors will be used in the evaluation the Technical/Management Approach Factor.

1. Sub-Factor 1.1: Technical Approach to Mission Performance

The Government will evaluate this sub-factor to determine if the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the technical requirements and objectives of this acquisition, and the effectiveness of the proposed approach to satisfy the requirements in the HRM II PWS. The evaluation will be based on the following standards:

· A clear understanding of the scope, complexity, and interrelationships of the work across Workforce & Management Services (HDC), National Geospatial-Intelligence College (HDN), Talent Acquisition (HDR), Human Capital Advanced Capabilities (HDS), and Business Innovation (HDF);

· An understanding of the Intelligence Community and classified operating environment in which performance will occur;

· An understanding of, and approach for complying with, applicable regulatory and policy requirements, including DCIPS, ICPG, OPM, and other relevant federal HR requirements;

· A workload management approach addressing resource allocation, prioritization, volume handling, and surge capacity across the HD offices;

· An approach for managing evolving requirements and scaling resources and processes to meet changing workload demands throughout the period of performance;

· An approach for cross-functional coordination and integration among the HD offices, including process coordination, workflow standardization, data sharing, and communication protocols;

· An approach for monitoring, measuring, evaluating, and reporting contract performance in meeting the PWS requirements, including meaningful performance indicators, quality control measures, and management visibility mechanisms.

2. Sub-Factor 1.2: AI-Enabled Innovation and Resource Optimization:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed AI-Enabled Service Delivery Plan in support of PWS Section 2.0 and based on the following:

· The Offeror’s capability to provide services using existing Government-approved AI platforms and tools.

· For the Use Case Solutions portion of this sub-factor, the Government will evaluate only two (2) of the five (5) selected use cases to determine the extent to which the Offeror provides detailed, realistic, and feasible solutions:

USE CASES OUTLINED IN THE PWS:

· Category A

A1. Automated Resume Screening (PWS 2.3.6) Assessment and optimization of existing resume screening capabilities, including enhanced use of keyword matching and integration with current applicant tracking system(s).

A2. Enhanced Reporting (PWS 2.4.1) Assessment and optimization of existing reporting capabilities, including integration of current dashboards and optimization of existing analytics and reporting platforms.

A3. Self-Service Enhancement (PWS 2.1.16) Assessment and optimization of existing employee self-service capabilities, including improved use of portal functionality, knowledge base features, and integration with current help desk systems.

· Category B

B1. Process Automation (PWS 2.1) Assessment and optimization of existing workflow automation capabilities, including enhanced use of current robotic process automation (RPA) tools, integration of existing automation solutions, and identification of process efficiencies.

B2. Workforce Analytics (PWS 2.4.1) Assessment and optimization of existing workforce analytics capabilities, including integration of current data sources, enhancement of reporting functionality, and improved analytical outputs using existing tools and platforms.

· The Government will not evaluate the Offerors proposing new, unapproved tools, software, or capabilities. Proposals that depend on the acquisition, introduction, or implementation of tools not already approved by the Government may be evaluated less favorably or found unacceptable if inconsistent with Section 4, Instructions to Offerors.

3. Sub-Factor 1.3: Staffing Plan/ Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate the proposal using the standards below.

· Standard 1.3.1, Staffing Plan and Matrix: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s staffing plan to determine the extent to which it aligns with the proposed technical and management approach and key personnel, and demonstrates the ability to provide qualified personnel, maintain continuity of operations, meet workload demands, and perform the HRM II requirement and minimizes performance risk.

The Government will also consider whether the proposed staffing distribution, and labor category structure appear unbalanced, insufficient, excessive, unsupported, or otherwise inconsistent with the Offeror’s proposed approach.

· Standard 1.3.2, Key Personnel: The Key Personnel resumes will be evaluated on whether the proposed individuals meet the required and desired qualifications within the HRM II PWS (Attachment 1 Appendix B). Any resume that does not meet all of the required qualifications for the applicable labor category will be considered deficient and ineligible for award. Resume evaluation will also consider the extent to which proposed individuals’ technical background, education, work experience, and accomplishments demonstrate knowledge relevant to the activities described in the HRM II PWS.

4. Sub-Factor 1.4: Transition-In Plan The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Transition-In Plan to determine the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a sound, feasible, and low-risk approach for assuming performance from the incumbent contractor and achieving full operational capability within the required 90-day phase-in period without disruption to HR services.

In particular, the Government will evaluate whether the Transition-In Plan clearly identifies:

· The tasks, activities, and sequencing necessary to accomplish an orderly and efficient phase-in;

· The timeframe in which personnel, including Key Personnel and other required staff, will be onboarded and in place;

· How the Offeror will achieve full staffing and full operational support as required by the PWS transition plan section 5;

· The relationship and consistency between the Transition-In Plan and the Offeror’s proposed staffing resources and management approach;

· Transition-related risks that could affect timely and successful performance; and

· The proposed mitigation strategies to address identified risks.

(B) Factor 2: Past Performance

i. Evaluation Criteria Descriptions

· This Factor assesses the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements based on its record of past performance on contracts.

· The past performance evaluation will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services meeting the solicitation requirements, including the past performance of significant subcontractors (defined as performing at least 25% of the proposed price).

· The sources of past performance information that may be evaluated include:

· The Offeror’s Past Performance Volume

· Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 6)

· Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the NGA Performance Assessment Reports (PARs) and other sources, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; DCAA; and interviews with Program Managers, COs, Contracting Officer’s Representatives, Technical Monitors, and/or Fee Determining Officials.

· Unlike other evaluation factors, past performance information known from sources other than those in or resulting from the proposal may be considered by evaluators in the Past Performance evaluation. If additional data is needed from any of the sources, the past performance evaluators may conduct interviews to obtain sufficient information to complete their evaluation. Any such interviews will be monitored and controlled by the CO.

· The recency and relevancy of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in a contractor’s performance will be considered (FAR 15.305(a)(2)). These are combined to establish one past performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

· There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data) and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

· Recency

· A contract/task order is considered recent if it is ongoing for at least 12 months or has been completed within five (5) years of the date of the HRM II solicitation issuance.

· A contract/task order that fails the recency assessment will not receive further consideration in the past performance evaluation and will not be considered in the overall confidence assessment.

· Relevancy

· The relevancy determination may include, but is not limited to, the Offeror’s or its subcontractor’s role on the proposed team (if applicable), similarity of service/support; availability/use of similarly skilled staff; contract type, and/or extent of subcontract/teaming.

· The four levels of relevancy are shown in Table 5-4: Past Performance Relevancy Rating. An effort that is assessed as Not Relevant will not receive further consideration in the past performance evaluation or be considered in the overall confidence assessment.

Table 5-4: Past Performance Relevancy Rating

· Quality The quality of the Offeror’s past performance will be assessed using the following areas of consideration:

· Technical Performance: quality of services/products and staffing/personnel; and, capability to employ sound innovative practices:

· Management Performance: adherence to schedule, performance, and cost responsiveness to the customer; and, communication between the customer and Offeror;

· Cost/Price Performance: quality, completeness, timeliness, and accuracy of cost/price proposals, documentation, and reports; cost control; and identification and implementation of cost saving measures;

· Small Business Participation: the extent to which the Offeror has met small business participation goals, or incorporated small business participation (if no formal goals were included in the contract/task order).

· Only past performance efforts that are assessed Very Relevant, Relevant, or Somewhat Relevant will be considered in the quality assessment.

· The Government will not assess separate quality ratings for each contract/task order or an overall quality rating, but will consider the inputs received from customers/clients on quality for all recent and relevant contracts/task orders in determining an overall confidence assessment.

· Confidence Rating

The Government will consider all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance into the performance confidence assessment provided in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5: Past Performance Confidence Rating

ii. If there is no information on past contract performance or none is available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

(C) Factor 3: Security (Pass/Fail)

The Government will evaluate information provided in the Offeror’s proposal on a Pass/Fail basis at the time of proposal submission to determine security eligibility and the ability to satisfy the requirements set forth in the DD Form 254, and an assessment of the Offeror’s security plan submitted in its proposal explaining how the Offeror will comply with security policies and regulations. The Offeror shall provide information that can be verified via NGA, DoW, and/or IC databases and/or through coordination with other DoW and IC agencies, as applicable. The following Sub-Factors will be used to evaluate the Security Factor.

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated, via a database query, to determine whether the Offeror, at the time of the Security Volume submission, possesses an active Top Secret FCL (Facility Clearance shown on DD Form 254). The Offeror shall: (1) demonstrate that there are no unmitigated FOCI issues or concerns (all “no” answers to SF 328); or, when there are “yes” answers, (2) include official communications from DCSA authorizing their FCL with FOCI; or (3) provide a screen capture of their NISS Facility Profiles tab displaying their current status as having no unmitigated FOCI issues in conjunction with their SF 328 (that displays “yes” answers). 13 C.F.R. 121.103(h)(4) will be applied when the Government evaluates the proposal under this Sub-Factor if the Offeror is a small business joint venture. Thus, if applicable, “Offeror” includes the “joint venture itself or the individual partner(s) to the joint venture that will perform the necessary security work.”

The below Pass/Fail ratings will be applied to determine if the Security Volume passes or fails Sub-Factor 3.1: Facility Clearance (FCL) and Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI).

Table Rating for FCL and FOCI

b. Sub-Factor 3.2: Personnel Security Clearance Level (PCL)/ Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access The Security Volume will be evaluated, via a database query, to determine that each key personnel (as required by the RFP) proposed by the Offeror, demonstrates a favorably adjudicated Top Secret/SCI Access Eligibility that:1) is not more than seven years old; or has been entered into the Continuous Evaluation program with a deferred investigation requirement, and 2) meets the reciprocity requirements of Security Executive Agent Directive 7 (SEAD 7).

The below Pass/Fail ratings will be applied to determine if the Security volume passes or fails Sub-Factor 3.2: Personnel Security Clearance (PCL)/ Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access.

Table Rating for PCL

[NOTE: Proposed personnel with waivers, conditions, or deviations assigned to access eligibility will be accepted for consideration during source selection; however, after award, NGA Personnel Security may determine the waiver, condition, or deviation poses an unacceptable National Security risk for NGA and not accept the waiver, condition or deviation.

c. Sub-Factor 3.3 Security Plan The Security volume will be evaluated for the Offeror’s approach to protect classified (collateral and SCI) information in accordance with DoW, and DNI, security policies and regulations for this effort. At a minimum the security plan shall demonstrate an understanding of the Government’s requirement by addressing: (1) the pre-screening of individuals for security clearances/accesses; (2) security training requirements; (3) a comprehensive approach to the protection and safeguarding of classified/sensitive information; (4) a plan to manage threats to the supply chain from foreign interference; and (5) procedures for handling security incidents and/or violations.

The below Pass/Fail ratings will be applied to determine if the Security volume passes or fails Sub-Factor 3.3: Security Plan Table Rating for Security Plan

d. Sub-Factor 3.4: Cybersecurity Hygiene The Security Volume will be evaluated, via a database query using Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) to determine that each CAGE code identified in the proposal has a current NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment (i.e., not more than 3 years old unless a lesser time is specified in the solicitation). For scores reflected in SPRS that are less than 110, the security volume shall contain an estimated date for accomplishing an assessment score of 110.

The below Pass/Fail ratings will be applied to determine if the Security volume passes or fails Sub-Factor 3.4: Cybersecurity Hygiene Table Rating for Cybersecurity Hygiene

e. Sub-Factor 3.5 Supply Chain Risk When applicable, the Government will assess an Offeror’s supply chain risk and assign a threat level, following guidance set forth in Intelligence Community Standard (ICS) 731-02, Supply Chain Threat Assessments, the below Pass/Fail ratings will be applied to determine if the Supply Chain Risk is acceptable to the Government using the following definitions for each threat level:

· Critical – Information indicates a foreign intelligence entity (FIE) or other adversary is engaged in subversion, exploitation, or sabotage of the acquisition item or service’s supply chain, including business practices and relationships. Alternative information indicates a FIE or other adversary has established an overt or clandestine relationship within the supply chain, and that a FIE or other adversary has the capability and intent to engage in subversion, exploitation, or sabotage of the acquisition item or service’s supply chain.

· High – Information indicates a FIE or other adversary has the capability and intent to engage in subversion, exploitation or sabotage of the acquisition item or service’s supply chain; however, there are no indications of subversion, exploitation, or sabotage.

· Medium - Information indicates a FIE or other adversary has either the capability or the intent to engage in subversion, exploitation or sabotage of the acquisition item or service’s supply chain; however, there are no indications of subversion, exploitation, or sabotage.

· Low - Information indicates a FIE or other adversary have neither the capability nor the intent to engage in subversion, exploitation, or sabotage of the acquisition item or service’s supply chain.

· Insufficient Information – The information available is insufficient to assign a threat level to a FIE’s or other adversary’s capability and intent to engage in subversion, exploitation, or sabotage of the acquisition item or service’s supply chain.

Table Rating for Supply Chain Risk

(D) Factor 4: Small Business Participation Plan

i. The Government will use the following in considering the Offeror’s SBPP and the extent to which the Offeror’s approach maximizes small business participation and satisfies the HRM II requirements:

a. The extent to which the Offeror meets the minimum Small Business goal of 25% of the total contract value.

Measure: Offeror’s proposal shows SB goal of 25%

· Acceptable/MTS: Offeror commits to or exceeds established SB goal of 25%.

· Unacceptable: Offeror does not reference a SB goal or commit to the established SB goal of 25%.

b. The extent to which the Offeror specifically identifies Small Businesses in the proposal.

Measure: Does the Offeror specifically name SB partners in the Participation Plan?

· Acceptable/MTS: Offeror names SB partners in the participation plan.

· Unacceptable: Offeror does not name SB partners in the participation plan.

c. The extent of participation of Small Businesses is expressed in terms of the total contract value of acquisition.

Measure: Does the Offeror list the level of SB participation in terms of the total contract value ($) of the acquisition?

· Acceptable/MTS: The Offeror expresses the level of SB participation in terms of TCV ($) and the dollars meet or exceed the value associated with the 25% SB goal.

· Unacceptable: The Offeror does not express the level of SB participation in terms of TCV ($) and the dollars do not meet the value associated with the 25% SB goal.

ii. NOTE for Small Business Offerors: If a small business Offeror proposes as the Prime Contractor, its participation in the contract counts towards small business participation and should be identified as such.

iii. In evaluating the extent of participation of small business concerns, the Government will assign a Pass/Fail rating to the overall Small Business Participation Factor using Table 5-6

Table 5-6 Small Business Participation Plan Rating

(E) Factor 5: Price

i. The Offeror’s Price Volume will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.4 to determine if the proposed price is complete and reasonable.

ii. The Offeror’s proposed Fully Burdened Labor Rates (FBLRs) and Total Proposed Evaluated Price (TPEP) (Tab 3 and Tab 4) of Attachment 12) will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4 to determine reasonableness.

iii. The TPEP is the sum of the price for all CLINs and Option Periods inclusive of FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services” and the cost of any additionally requested GFP. (Attachment 12). The TPEP will be evaluated for reasonableness per FAR Subpart 15.4 and used in the tradeoff between price and non-price evaluation factors (excluding Security and Small Business Participation Plan) to determine the best value to the Government.

iv. The Government, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis of any offer to ensure that the offered prices are realistic. Offered prices will not be adjusted as a result of a price realism analysis. The price realism determination will be used to inform the potential risk to performance in the best value determination. The Government is not required to conduct a price realism analysis on any or all proposals; but may do so if it determines in its sole discretion to conduct such analysis. Any offer that is determined to be unrealistic will be un-awardable.

v. Any Offeror whose prices are determined to be unbalanced, as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g), will not be considered for award.

vi. Evaluation of Options, including FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 52.217-5. The Government will evaluate the total price of the “Option to Extend Services” by factoring 50% of the evaluated price for Option Year 4.