Draft Atch 13 Section M 9 Dec.pdf

HQ0147-09-R-0006

Attachment 13, Section M

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990

1.0 Introduction: This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposed solution for the Airborne Sensors contract. The Government will compare each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria as it relates to the Government’s requirement defined herein.

2.0 Basis for Award: This is a competitive, best value, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 and Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) Part

215.3. In using this best value approach, the Government seeks to award to an Offeror who gives the Missile

Defense Agency the greatest confidence that it will best meet the Government’s requirements in an affordable manner. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for the maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire 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 and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority, and/or overall business approach, and/or superior past performance, of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference.

Evaluation Methodology. Throughout the evaluation, evaluators examine each Offeror's response to the solicitation requirements, identifying ambiguities that may need clarification, strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The different types of comments and the methods of documenting them are described below.

Strengths and Weaknesses

When evaluating each proposal, evaluators identify and describe strengths and weaknesses. A strength is a significant, outstanding, or exceptional aspect of a proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance, capability requirements, or objectives. A significant strength in the proposal is an aspect that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance. A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiencies

A deficiency is 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.

Evaluators must document deficiencies during their review of the proposal.

The proposal risk assessment focuses on the weaknesses associated with an Offeror’s proposed approach.

Assessment of risk will be accomplished at the subfactor level and will not be rolled up to the factor level. Proposal risk will be evaluated using the following risk ratings:

Rating Definition

High Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Moderate Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome any difficulties.

3.0 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government will award one or more contracts that provide the best overall value based upon an integrated assessment of 1) Technical, 2) Management, 3) Relevant Past and

Present Performance, and 4) Cost/Price areas. One or more contracts will be awarded, one for the WASP and associated sensors, and one for the HALOs and associated sensors, to the Offeror(s) who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government.

4.0 Evaluation: All proposals received will be subject to technical, management, past and present performance and cost/price evaluation by a technical evaluation team and a contract evaluation team. A color code rating technique will be used to evaluate the Technical and Management Proposals. The Cost/Price Proposal will not be given a color rating. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the

Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Evaluation Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance, with the remaining Factors 3 and 4 in descending order of importance. Technical subfactors are listed in descending order of importance. Management subfactors are all of equal importance. Color and proposal risk ratings will be assigned at the Technical and Management subfactor level. Past and Present Performance will receive an overall performance confidence rating. Cost/price will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value.

The non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important that cost/price, but cost/price will contribute substantially to the Source Selection decision. The lowest priced proposal may not necessarily receive the award;

likewise, the highest technically rated proposal may not necessarily receive the award. Selection is based on the proposal that will be most advantageous to the Government.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Mission Support

Subfactor 2: Mission Assurance

Subfactor 3: Technical Development

Factor 2: Management

Subfactor 1: Management Approach

Subfactor 2: Transition

Subfactor 3: Staffing

Subfactor 4: Facilities

Subfactor 5: Small Business Subcontracting and Commitment

Factor 3: Past and Present Performance

Factor 4: Cost / Price

4.1 Technical, Factor 1 and Management, Factor 2: Evaluation of these factors shall focus on meeting or exceeding the Government’s requirements, and any strengths and/or deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal using the following color ratings. Offerors are encouraged to reference previous experience in performing work of the same scope and magnitude in order to demonstrate their capability to meet or exceed requirements and to support the

Government’s assessment of actual mission capability. Discussion of previous experience should detail factual accomplishment and how it will be applied to meet or exceed the ABS requirements.

The Government will favorably consider proposed innovations and efficiencies that decrease cost and/or enhance contract schedule and/or performance, are of benefit to the Government, and are in enough detail to be made contractually binding. To support the Government’s determination of actual benefit, the Offeror may discuss any cost advantages that may or may not appear in the Cost/Price Proposal. Favorable assessments will be based on the extent to which Offerors demonstrate a commitment to provide additional benefits to the MDA and ABS mission, such as providing higher output, capability, and quality, or exceeding performance thresholds identified in the SOW.

The Government will not roll up subfactor ratings into an overall color rating for Technical or Management. Note that if an Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the Offeror’s proposal and the proposal will be rendered unawardable. Also see paragraph 5.0.

Color Ratings

Color Rating Definition

Blue Exceptional Greatly exceeds specified minimum performance, capability requirements, or objectives in a way beneficial to MDA.

Purple Excellent Exceeds specified minimum performance, capability requirements, or objectives in a way beneficial to MDA.

Green Acceptable Meets specified minimum performance, capability requirements, or objectives.

Yellow Marginal Does not clearly meet some specified minimum performance, capability requirements, or objectives necessary for acceptable contract performance, but the problem is correctable.

Red Unacceptable Fails to meet specified minimum performance, capability requirements, or objectives.

4.2 Past and Present Performance – Factor 3: The past and present performance evaluation will result in an assignment of a performance confidence assessment rating. The Offeror’s recent and relevant past and present performance will focus on performance that is relevant to the Technical and Management subfactors.

The recency and relevancy of the past performance information is critical in determining what contracts will be evaluated. Current performance will have greater impact in the performance confidence assessment than less recent performance. In determining relevancy, consideration will be given to, but will not be limited to, such things as project similarity, project complexity, contract type, and subcontractor interaction. In performing the past performance evaluation, each Offeror will be assigned one of the following confidence ratings:

Exceptional/High

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Very Good/Significant

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory/Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there may be some doubt due to the

Offeror’s past performance record, but confidence exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Marginal/Little

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unsatisfactory/No

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral/Unknown

No performance record is identifiable.

4.3 Cost/Price – Factor 4: Although less important than the three non-price factors combined, the Cost/Price

Factor will contribute substantially to the source selection decision. While cost/price will not be rated or color coded, it will be evaluated in terms of reasonableness and realism. Unrealistically high or low price or cost estimates, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

5.0 Competitive Range: In accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1), the contracting officer may establish a competitive range comprised of the highest rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all of the evaluation criteria. If the SSA determines that an Offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful Offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503.

5.1 Discussions: To maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in this RFP, it may be necessary to conduct discussions. If there are weaknesses, deficiencies, uncertainties, or other issues which must be addressed before award, they will be discussed with only those Offerors determined to be in the competitive range. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing.

The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of contracting officer judgment. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (less than 24 hours) in responding to the contracting officer. Offerors should present their very best proposal as their initial proposal. Offerors are strongly advised to thoroughly examine their proposals for accuracy, complete documentation, clear explanations and compliance with all requirements of the RFP prior to submission to the contracting officer. The Government will not conduct successive rounds of discussions to give Offerors the opportunity to strengthen weak proposals.

5.2 Final Proposal Revisions: If discussions are conducted, final proposal revisions will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP. Offerors are advised that unsupported final proposal revisions may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy. However, the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions, in which case, final proposal revisions will not be required.

5.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is determined to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low cost when compared to the Government estimate, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

5.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors 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 fully explained and justified.

6.0 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL

6.1 Technical Subfactor 1: Mission Support

(a) Definition. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to execute missions in terms of supporting the Government’s Mission Development Process, managing the Mission Planning Process, executing missions, and providing data analysis and reporting. The evaluation of this subfactor will be accomplished through the use of the Mission Planning Sample Task, Section J, Attachment 2.

(b) References. This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Section 4.1, Mission Support; SOW Section 4.2, Operations and Sustainment; and SOW Section 3.3, Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability.

(c) Threshold requirements:

1. Offeror demonstrates capability to achieve mission objectives.

2. Offeror demonstrates efficient processes to establish, implement, and maintain operations procedures.

3. Offeror demonstrates capability to develop operations concepts for new missions/customers.

4. Offeror demonstrates capability to perform readiness activities including planning, preparation, execution, and data analysis.

5. Offeror demonstrates the capability to perform timely data analysis and reporting.

6. Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the EO/IR systems.

6.2 Technical Subfactor 2: Mission Assurance

(a) Definition. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to employ disciplined systems engineering, risk management, quality and management principles to achieve mission success in the execution of all aspects of the contract. The Government will evaluate this subfactor using the Offeror’s proposed tailoring of the MDA Assurance Provisions (MAP), implementation of the specified MAP areas, and Mission

Assurance Implementation Plan (MAIP) development schedule.

(b) References. This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Section 3.0, Mission Assurance.

(c) Threshold requirement:

1. Offeror demonstrates the ability to identify sections of the MAP that are applicable to the ABS

Program in creating a responsive and disciplined mission assurance program that is balanced with the need to control cost. The expectation is that the Offeror will explain the approach proposed and how it will contribute to safety and mission success.

2. Offeror demonstrates the ability to implement selected areas of the tailored MAP as called out in

Section L.

3. Offeror demonstrates the ability to develop a thorough and realistic schedule for the development of a draft MAIP that implements the Offeror’s tailored MAP.

4. Offeror demonstrates the ability to develop and implement a disciplined Configuration Management process for the aircraft, sensors, sensor tables and software to support mission success.

5. Offeror demonstrates the ability to implement methods for their approach to a successful ABS Risk

Management program. The Offeror’s Risk Management program must address the process to identify and manage technical and programmatic risks for the aircraft, sensors, sensor tables, other hardware, and software that could impede Mission Success or Technical Development.

6. Offeror demonstrates the ability to execute Software Development, Maintenance, and Operational

Processes practices necessary to provide software in support of ABS requirements. The Offeror will demonstrate that the processes followed for all flight, mission, and data processing software will be developed and maintained at a level commensurate with the Software Engineering

Institute/Capability Maturity Model Integration (SEI/CMMI) Level 3 requirements or greater.

7. Offeror demonstrates the ability to execute the ABS contract to optimize the reliability of the aircraft, sensors, sensor tables and software. Reliability is a measurement of the probability that the system will perform satisfactorily for a given mission time when used under specified operational conditions. The ABS system reliability evaluation and improvement program shall be focused upon providing the most reliable ABS system within the constraints of program resources.

8. Offeror demonstrates the ability to execute the ABS contract to optimize the reliability of the aircraft, sensors, mission systems and software. Reliability is the probability that a component part, equipment, or system will satisfactorily perform its intended function under given circumstances, such as environmental conditions, limitations as to operating time, and frequency and thoroughness of maintenance for a specified period of time. Reliability data shall be collected and documented to define all efforts associated with operating, sustaining, and maintaining the ABS.

9. Offeror demonstrates the ability to provide logistics support to execute the ABS contract. Logistics support for ABS shall be accomplished through Contractor Logistics Support (CLS). The ABS logistics effort will focus on providing maximum attainable ABS system availability during test and mission activities within the program resource allocation budget.

10. Offeror demonstrates the ability to develop a successful ABS System Safety Program Plan with the purpose of providing the principles, criteria, and techniques to achieve acceptable mishap risk within the cost, schedule, and performance constraints of the program.

6.3 Technical Subfactor 3: Technical Development

(a) Definition. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate their potential to develop increased ABS capability through the development of sensor enhancements, aircraft modification design, integration and test, and innovative sensor integration techniques that will enhance the overall ABS mission. ABS mission enhancements could include new sensors, additional aircraft platforms requiring airframe modifications and improved sensor tables. The evaluation of this subfactor will be accomplished through the use of the Technical Development Sample Task in Section L.

(b) References. This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Section 4.3, Improvements and Modernizations;

SOW Section 4.4, Technical Development, and SOW Section 3.0, Mission Assurance.

1. Offeror demonstrates the ability to modify ABS aircraft and aircraft subsystems to enhance the ABS program and maintain airworthiness certification.

2. Offeror demonstrates the ability to develop and use innovative sensor integration techniques to enhance the ABS program.

3. Offeror demonstrates technical competence in the area of Electro/Optical and infrared technology.

4. Offeror demonstrates the ability to use the Mission Assurance processes proposed in the tailored

MAP/MAIP.

7.0 FACTOR 2 - MANAGEMENT

7.1 Management Subfactor 1: Management Approach

(a) Definition: This subfactor uses the Program Plan, CDRL A001, to evaluate the Offeror’s ability to organize resources to most efficiently and effectively manage the execution of the contract.

(b) References. This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Section 4.1, Mission Support; SOW Section 4.2, Operations and Sustainment; SOW Section 3.0, Mission Assurance, and SOW Section 2.0, Management.

(c) Threshold Requirements:

1. Offeror demonstrates a management approach that describes how they will apply corporate management practices and processes to the ABS Program.

2. Offeror demonstrates a management approach that describes how they will manage all aspects of the contract to minimize cost and maintain schedule.

3. Offeror demonstrates an approach to training that assures an adequate number of fully trained contractor personnel to fulfill all Mission Support requirements.

4. Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the scope and interaction of activities within the ABS

Program by providing a Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) and CWBS dictionary that reflect the ABS program.

5. Offeror demonstrates a management approach that provides efficient program information.

6. Offeror demonstrates a management approach that has a program-wide approach to managing technical, performance, cost, and schedule risk.

7. Offeror demonstrates ability to train and certify personnel without any impact to the accomplishment of mission tasks.

8. Offeror demonstrates the ability to organize, manage, and maintain Government Furnished

Property (GFP).

9. Offeror demonstrates a management approach to appropriately manage subcontractors in a manner that enhances the overall execution of the ABS program.

10. Offeror demonstrates the ability to implement the basic structure necessary to provide program protection.

7.2 Management Subfactor 2: Transition

(a) Definition. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to provide a plan to work with the incumbent contractor(s) during the transition period to maintain all mission requirements and to complete the transition period in the minimum time and cost.

(b) References. This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Section 4.1, Mission Support; SOW Section 4.2, Operations and Sustainment; SOW Section 3.0, Mission Assurance, and SOW Section 2.0, Management.

1. Offeror demonstrates the ability to transition all activities required to perform the ABS mission.

2. Offeror provides a manageable process to work with the incumbent contractor(s) to smoothly transition ABS mission.

3. Offeror provides a realistic schedule, which includes milestones with metrics to measure progress, to successfully transition all tasks within a designated transition period.

7.3 Management Subfactor 3: Staffing

(a) Definition. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to properly assess all aspects of this solicitation and construct an efficient staffing approach to meet the requirements of the contract.

(b) References. This subfactor is impacted by all SOW Sections. SOW Section 2.1, Program Management specifically addresses this requirement. This subfactor addresses the CWBS as a whole.

(c) Threshold requirement:

1. Offeror proposed a phase-in schedule that would obtain the appropriate staffing levels, skill mix, expertise, and security clearances to provide enough trained, certified, and cleared personnel to prevent degradation of mission tasks.

7.4 Management Subfactor 4: Facilities

(a) Definition. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to providing appropriate facilities for the ABS aircraft and support equipment, and adequate facilities to store ABS sensors and sensor integration hardware. This subfactor also will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to provide appropriate facilities for their

ABS team and a software development and data analysis environment that enhances mission effectiveness.

(b) References. This subfactor primarily focuses on SOW Section 2.1, Program Management; SOW

Section 4.1, Mission Support, and 4.2, Operations and Sustainment.

1. Offeror demonstrates the ability to house the ABS aircraft and support equipment in facilities optimized for sensor integration, aircraft maintenance, accessibility to ABS team members and cost.

2. Offeror demonstrates the ability to provide facilities to integrate, test, modify, repair and store ABS sensor and sensor table equipment.

3. Offeror demonstrates the ability to provide an adequate software development, management and maintenance environment to support ABS operations and technical development.

4. Offeror demonstrates the ability to protect the ABS assets per the DD-254 security requirements.

7.5 Management Subfactor 5 - Small Business Subcontracting and Commitment

(a) Definition. This subfactor is separate from the contract requirements for an approved small business subcontracting plan and will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed use of small businesses as subcontractors for contract performance. Specifically, it will evaluate the percentage of subcontracted work that is planned for small businesses in terms of both proposed subcontract dollars and total contract value, the type of work to be subcontracted and the extent to which both specific companies are named in the proposal and legally enforceable agreements are demonstrated. This subfactor will also evaluate the extent to which offerors propose contract specific initiatives to utilize/grow future small business capabilities in order to incorporate innovations, reduce risk, improve quality or increase the competitive pool of small businesses able to perform the work required.

(b) Reference. Federal Acquisition Regulation 19.2.

1. Offeror demonstrates the ability to award at least 15% of subcontracted dollars to small businesses and at least

1% (individually) in three of the following five small business subcategories - HUBZone, service-disabled veteran-owned, small disadvantaged, women-owned, historically black colleges & universities/minority institutions.

2. Offeror proposes a significant amount (at least 25%) of subcontract dollars for performance of work that is directly related to the contract or requires professional or skilled labor.

3. Offeror names specific small businesses for the majority of proposed small business subcontracting and has a legally enforceable agreement with at least one small business subcontractor.

4. Offeror proposes to implement at least one contract specific initiative to enhance small business utilization or capabilities.

8.0 FACTOR 3 - PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE

Under the Past and Present Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror's past and present work record to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in providing services that meet user's needs, including price and schedule. The

Government’s definition of recency refers to contracts performed during the five (5) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an

Offeror's recent and relevant present and past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the Technical and Management subfactors and the cost/price factor. A relevancy determination of the Offeror's present and past performance, including joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners, will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being performed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

For prime contractors, higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort. For proposed subcontractors, higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the portions of this effort for which that subcontractor is being proposed, and may contribute to an overall higher relevancy score for the

Offeror. The Government is not bound by the Offeror's opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy definitions apply:

Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

The Government evaluation team, known as the Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG), will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the current requirement.

When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

As a result of an analysis of an Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance, each Offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment, which will result in an overall confidence rating for the Past

Performance factor. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the

Technical and Management subfactors and the cost/price factor, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment rating is made at the Past Performance factor level.

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the Offeror's evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small, Small

Disadvantaged, and Women-Owned Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small, Small Disadvantaged and

Women-Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Each Offeror will receive one of the confidence ratings described in paragraph 4.2 above for the Past

Performance Factor.

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 an

"Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. However, a rating other than neutral may be assessed if the Offeror proposes management personnel who have an acceptable or better record of performance on relevant contracts, or if a proposed subcontractor or partner who will be performing a significant portion of the work has an acceptable or better performance history on relevant contracts.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating or any unfavorable comments received from sources. The Offeror will be notified of adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had the opportunity to respond, or previous response was inadequate, when the contract is determined to have a somewhat relevant or higher relevancy rating, and given the opportunity to respond.

9.0 Factor 4 – Cost/Price

Evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal shall be based on the information presented in the proposal and information available to the contracting office from sources deemed appropriate. Sources typically considered include the

Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defense Contract Management Administration offices, and other contracts with same firms for similar items or services, and known commercial sources.

9.1 Government Evaluation. The cost area is comprised of an assessment of cost realism and total evaluated probable cost. The Total Evaluated Probable Cost will be presented to the Source Selection Authority. Cost/Price will not receive a color rating. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s cost/price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404 to determine the Total Evaluated Probable Cost to the Government of successfully completing the contract using the Offeror’s unique approach. Cost/Price will be assessed in accordance with the following criteria:

9.2 Realism: The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the Offeror. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

The Government will determine the most probable cost of performance for those efforts, taking into consideration the Offeror’s technical and management approaches proposed, unique business methods, operating procedures, and practices. The most probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. The most probable cost (before fee) is determined by adjusting the Offeror’s proposed cost, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

9.3 Total Evaluated Probable Cost. Total Evaluated Probable Cost consists of the Government’s estimate of the realistic cost of successfully completing the CPIF line items as discussed in 9.2, plus the total amount of any additional costs to the Government which are necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach (e.g. the

Government-assessed value associated with GFE, information, and facilities shown in the GFE attachment in

Section J; other rent-free government property proposed by the Offeror; and government furnished range services).

The Government will also adjust the incentive fee in accordance with the Offeror’s proposed incentive fee adjustment formula, and add the proposed award fee amounts. The Total Evaluated Probable Cost will be used in the Government’s best value assessment.

9.4 Unexplained price reductions. For purposes of this acquisition, the Government considers any type of price reduction that is unexplained, including any identified as a management challenge, to be unreasonable. An unexplained price reduction or unreasonably low target fee rate may adversely affect an Offeror’s proposal risk rating under the mission capability subfactors.

9.5 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government may reject an offer as unacceptable if the price is materially unbalanced Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.