Section_M_-_Evaluation_Criteria_Business_Operations.pdf

SECTION M: EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Government will evaluate the offerors’ proposals in accordance with (IAW) the criteria specified in this section. The Government may award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms for each factor/subfactor. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M-2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

M-2.1 Best Value Tradeoff

This is a best-value, competitive source selection conducted IAW the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3 and MDA Manual 5013.06-M, Source Selection Procedures. To be eligible for award, the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1; and meet the requirements of the solicitation, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. An offeror may submit more than one proposal but no more than two; however, Alternate Proposals – defined herein as proposals that deviate in any way from the solicitation terms and conditions and/or the stated performance requirement – will not be considered. Contingent proposals are not allowed, nor will they be accepted, considered or evaluated by the Government. Contingent proposals are defined herein as proposals that include terms or conditions that imply that performance is contingent upon any sort of provisioning from the Government that is not set forth in the RFP.

M-2.2 The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic, including contract terms and conditions, program commitments, unrealistically high or low cost when compared to the Independent Government Estimate, or a proposal that is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of understanding/competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of all stated requirements.

M-2.3 If discussions are required, a competitive range determination will be utilized IAW FAR

15.306. Offerors are hereby notified that IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2), the PCO may limit the number of the most highly rated proposals to a number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The PCO will notify any offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range IAW FAR 15.503, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR Subparts15.505 and 15.506, respectively.

M-2.4 The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of technical, management, past performance and Cost and Price. The offeror’s Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

TEAMS Business Operations Solicitation # HQ0147-15-R-0019

Management Plan, Security Plan and Small Business will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

M-2.5 Award may be made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the SSA reasonably determines that the technical, management, and/or past performance superiority of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price differential. The selection decision will document tradeoffs between technical, management, past performance and cost and price for offers with “Acceptable” approaches to OCI Management, Security, and Small Business.

M-2.6 Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR subpart 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the PCO later determines them to be necessary. If the PCO 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 PCO 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.

If discussions are required, they may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of PCO judgment as set forth in FAR 15.306. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (within 2 business days) in responding to the PCO.

Should the Government need to conduct written exchanges with Offerors, they will be in the form of an Evaluation Notice (EN). Page format and limitations will be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (EN) in the event they are issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. ENs may be sent electronically (i.e. via e-mail) at the discretion of the contracting officer. The EN will request an e-mail or a hardcopy response. If a hardcopy response is requested, the EN responses shall be submitted on a light colored paper to distinguish between the original and clarifications. Specific paper color requirement will be identified in the EN instruction(s).

M-2.7 Competitive Range

If discussions are conducted, the PCO will establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. If the PCO determines that an offeror’s proposal should not 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.

M-2.8 Final Proposal Revisions

Final proposal revisions will be requested when discussions have been conducted. 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. Any changes to or non-concurrence with contract terms and conditions submitted in the final proposal revision will not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentage rates, etc.). Rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the final proposal revision that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the final proposal revision, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-2.9 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.

M-3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA

M-3.1 Factors/Subfactors and Their Relative Order of Importance

The SSA will select the offeror whose proposal is considered the best value to the Government consistent with the factors and subfactors listed below.

TABLE M-1: ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE FACTORS

Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors Factor F1: Organizational Conflict of Interest Management Plan

Factor F2: RESERVED

Factor F3: Security Plan

Factor F4: Small Business

Factors F1 through F4 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-3. There is no order of relative importance for these Factors. Offerors assessed with an “Unacceptable” in any of these Factors will not be eligible for award.

TABLE M-2: EVALUATION FACTORS/SUBFACTORS

Evaluation Factors Factor F5: Past Performance

Factor F6: Technical Subfactor TS1: Technical Expertise/Approach Subfactor TS2: Technical Staffing Approach

Factor F7: Management Subfactor MS1: Recruitment and Retention Subfactor MS2: Contract Management Approach Subfactor MS3: Transition Plan

Factor F8: Cost and Price

The Technical factor is slightly more important than the Management factor. The Management factor is slightly more important than the Past Performance factor. These non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost and Price. Cost and Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value.

Technical Subfactor TS1, “Technical Expertise / Approach” is slightly more important than Technical Subfactor TS2, “Technical Staffing Approach.” Management Subfactor MS 1 “Recruitment and Retention” is equal to MS2 “Contract Management Approach”. MS3 “Transition Plan” is slightly less important than MS1 or MS2 individually.

M-4.0 FACTOR F1: OCI Management Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

The Government will evaluate the overall OCI Management Plan of each offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”, as defined at Table M-3.

The team will evaluate how the offeror identifies, evaluates and resolves actual and potential OCIs; the adequacy of its OCI training and oversight programs; the adequacy of its procedures for complying with MDA OCI Manual 5013.78-M, MDA Policy Memorandum No. 51, the TEAMS OCI Memorandum and OCI Clause (H-09) and the soundness of its processes to protect proprietary and nonpublic information from unauthorized disclosure.

Offerors that receive an “Unacceptable” rating for OCI Management Plan (after discussions if discussions are held) will be removed from consideration for award.

M-4.1 Acceptable/Unacceptable Definitions

The following “Acceptable/Unacceptable” methodology will be utilized for Factor F1, as well as Factors F2, F3, and F4.

TABLE M-3: Acceptable/Unacceptable Definitions Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

M-5.0 FACTOR F2: RESERVED

M-6.0 Factor F3: Security Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

The Government will evaluate the overall Security Plan of each offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” (as defined at Table M-3).

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to obtaining appropriate company and personnel security clearances; the adequacy of processes for safeguarding classified materials and controlled unclassified information (to include handling, storage and transmission) IAW the requirements of the DD 254; and the soundness of its process for obtaining security clearances at time of award and throughout contract performance, including short-notice change orders.

Offerors that receive an “Unacceptable” rating for Security Plan (after discussions if discussions are held) will be removed from consideration for award.

M-7.0 Factor F4: Small Business (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

The Government will evaluate the overall Small Business Compliance Plan of each offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” (as defined at Table M-3).

To receive an “Acceptable” rating in this factor, the offeror’s plan must:

a. Identify a sound process to meet the 50% rule, contained in FAR 52.219-14(c)(1).

b. Demonstrate the Small Business Prime’s total labor cost is at least 50% as identified in Table L-3 in Section L.

M-8.0 Factor F5: Past Performance

The past performance evaluation determines the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing the required effort based on the demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, and quality of performance, in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements.

The Past Performance evaluation will result in a Performance Confidence Assessment as defined at Table M-6. Offerors assessed with a Performance Confidence Assessment of “No Confidence” after the communications described in FAR 15.306(b)(4), if the Contracting Officer deems them necessary, will be removed from consideration for award.

In conducting this evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use past performance information provided by the offeror, obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, and data obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not be 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, PCOs, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The Government will conduct an assessment of the offeror’s, Team Members’, and Major Subcontractors’ Past Performance. Team Members and Major Subcontractors are defined in L-1.2

M-8.1 Recency

The Government will only consider recent work, which is defined as work performed during the five-year period preceding the date of this solicitation release. If any part of the performance falls within this five-year period, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

M-8.2 Relevancy Assessment

If the past performance information is recent, the relevancy assessment will be conducted on the offerors’ past contracts. Relevancy as it pertains to past performance information is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming. This area demonstrates the depth and breadth of relevant experience of the offeror, including major or critical subcontractors and/or subsidiaries.

Relevancy for the offeror’s past contracts will be assigned in accordance with the definitions outlined in Table M-4 below. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine whether those efforts relate to the proposed effort. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, Team Members, and Major Subcontractors whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. A single relevancy rating will be assessed for each recent PPI.

TABLE M-4: Factor F5 Relevancy Definitions

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M-8.3 Quality Assessment

The quality assessment is an evaluation that determines how well the offeror performed on recent and relevant past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the Past Performance Evaluation. A quality assessment will only be conducted against the offerors’ contracts assessed as recent and relevant.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will utilize the following ratings in assessing quality of performance relative to contract performance information obtained from other sources to include but not limited to: PPQs, PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, PCOs, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. A single quality rating will be assessed for each PPI.

TABLE M-5: Factor F5 Quality Definitions for Past Performance

Rating Descriptions

Exceptional Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded many to the Government’s benefit. Problems, if any, were negligible and were resolved in a timely, highly effective manner.

Very Good Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded some to the Government’s benefit. There were a few minor problems that the Offeror resolved in a timely, effective manner.

Satisfactory Performance met contract requirements. There were some minor problems and corrective actions taken by the contractor were sufficient.

Marginal Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. There were problems, some of a serious nature, for which corrective action was only marginally effective

Unsatisfactory Performance did not meet most contractual requirements. There were serious problems and the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

N/A Unknown or not required in the contract.

M-8.4 Overall Past Performance Rating

Based on the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality ratings assessed for each PPI, an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (as defined at Table M-6) will be assessed for each offeror.

TABLE M-6: Factor F5 Performance Confidence Assessment Definitions

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have “Unknown Confidence.” A record of “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” Confidence will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a record of “Unknown Confidence.”

M-8.5 Adverse Past Performance

Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that negatively impacts the performance confidence assessment on any evaluation aspect or verifiable unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. When a recent and 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.

In accordance with FAR subpart 15.306(b)(1)(i), communications must be held with any offeror whose adverse past performance information is the determining factor preventing it from being included in the competitive range, unless the offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information. Furthermore, the PCO must discuss adverse past performance with each offeror still being considered for award.

M-9.0 FACTOR F6: Technical

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the overall technical capability and approach of each offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements. Each subfactor within the Technical Factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-8. The Government will assess Technical proposal risk associated at the subfactor level focused on weaknesses associated with the offeror’s proposed technical approach.

Each subfactor within the Technical Factor will receive one of the proposal risk ratings described in Table M-9.

M-9.1 Subfactor TS1: Technical Expertise/ Approach

This subfactor measures the degree to which the offeror demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required by the PWS and the Key Product Tables.

While the Government’s evaluation will assess the offeror’s (inclusive of team members) ability to perform the entire PWS, the evaluation will place emphasis on the offeror’s demonstrated capability with respect to the following:

Strategic Planning and Financial Management o Capability to perform strategic planning, Business Case Analysis, POM, and budget formulation (i.e. Congressional justification materials) under Government direction with federal funds execution in multiple appropriations.

Cost Estimating and Analysis o Capability to prepare and analyze cost estimates and models varying in complexity with techniques common to the field. Capability to perform planning studies (i.e. Analysis of Alternatives, Business Case analysis, etc.) as pertains to cost estimating.

Earned Value Management (EVM) o Capability to perform EVM reporting and analysis in order to prepare reports for senior leaders to provide status updates or request programmatic decisions.

Capability to perform integrated baseline reviews to gauge health and status of program contracts.

Accounting o Capability to apply federal accounting standards, processes and provide financial products used to gauge audit readiness such as financial statements and reconciliations. Capability to understand commitments, obligations, and expenditures in Federal accounting.

Financial Systems Support and Integration o Capability to assess workflow between various financial systems and determining the best solution for customer needs. Capability to perform business process engineering, data analysis, GAP analysis, documenting procedures, federal budget concepts, federal accounting principles, requirements analysis, software development, systems operations and maintenance and sustainment, and database administration.

M-9.2 Subfactor TS2: Technical Staffing Approach

This subfactor measures the degree to which the offeror comprehends the PWS based on its proposed technical staffing approach to meeting requirements, to include labor skill mix, key personnel, education and/or experience, and team composition.

M-9.3 Factor F6 Discrimination Definitions

Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation and its stated evaluation factors and subfactors for award. The Government’s Technical evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and discriminators, including proposal strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies (as defined at Table M-7).

Each Technical Subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-8 and one of the risk ratings described in Table M-9. The color ratings and risk ratings will not be rolled up to the Technical Factor level. The Technical Subfactor color and risk ratings focus on the strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

TABLE M-7: Evaluation Definitions Discriminator Definition

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 Weakness 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.

M-9.4 Subfactor Adjectival/Color Rating Definitions

Evaluation of the Technical Factor shall focus on the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the performance requirements through an assessment of the strengths and deficiencies using the color ratings at Table M-8. The Government will not roll up Technical Subfactor ratings into an overall Technical adjectival/color rating. Note a deficiency (defined above) in the offeror’s proposal could render the offeror’s proposal unawardable.

TABLE M-8: Subfactor Rating Definitions Color Rating Definition

BLUE Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

PURPLE Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no deficiencies.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

RED Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

M-9.5 Subfactor Risk Rating Definitions

Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the Risk ratings defined in Table M-9 (Subfactor Risk Definitions) below. The risk ratings will not be rolled up to the Technical factor level. The Government will evaluate risks associated with each Technical subfactor. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), significant weakness(es), and deficiencies, considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

TABLE M-9: Subfactor Risk Rating Definitions Rating Definition

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

M-10.0 FACTOR F7: Management

The Government management evaluation team will evaluate the overall management capability and approach of each offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements. Each subfactor within the Management factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-8. The Government will assess Management proposal risk associated at the subfactor level focused on weaknesses associated with the offeror’s proposed Management approach. Each subfactor within the Management factor will receive one of the proposal risk ratings described in Table M-9.

M-10.1 Subfactor MS1: Recruitment and Retention

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Prime offeror’s approach provides for a sound management strategy, clearly:

Presenting the documented processes for recruiting and hiring personnel;

Presenting a sound process by which the offeror’s compensation plan is used for obtaining and retaining a quality workforce based on data provided IAW FAR 52.222-46 “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees”;

Outlining the strategy to retain capable, qualified and skilled personnel;

Outlining the strategy to ensure continuity of services in the midst of personnel disruption (such as sickness, leave, and voluntary or involuntary termination);

Presenting the documented processes for turnover.

M-10.2 Subfactor MS2: Contract Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s approach clearly demonstrates:

An effective approach to managing cost, schedule, and technical performance;

An effective approach for identification of substandard performance and effective implementation of corrective actions;

Effective lines of authority and communication, key personnel, position responsibilities, functional relationships, processes, and roles and responsibilities;

An effective approach to manage teaming partners and/or subcontractor relationships;

Adequate resourcing to support normal work effort and the ability to adapt those resources to urgent, emerging, and surge requirements;

An effective approach and processes for tracking status and prioritizing tasks, and an effective process for proactive, timely accomplishment of tasks and balancing workload;

An effective approach to provide cross-cutting functional support and integration across all disciplines.

M-10.3 Subfactor MS3: Transition Plan

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s approach reflects an effective strategy for implementing and accomplishing a seamless transition, maintaining continuity of support during the transition period as defined in the PWS.

M-10.4 Factor F7 Discriminator Definitions

Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation and its stated evaluation factors and subfactors for award. The Government’s Management evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and discriminators, including proposal strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies (as defined at Table M-7).

Each Management subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-8 and one of the risk ratings described in Table M-9. The color ratings and risk ratings will not be rolled up to the factor level. The Management subfactor color and risk ratings focus on the strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

M-10.5 Adjectival/Color Rating Definitions

Evaluation of the Management factor shall focus on the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the performance requirements through an assessment of the strengths and deficiencies using the color ratings at Table M-8. The Government will not roll up subfactor ratings into an overall adjectival/color rating for Management. Note a deficiency (defined above) in the offeror’s proposal could render the offeror’s proposal unawardable.

M-10.6 Risk Ratings

Each Management subfactor will receive one of the Risk ratings defined in Table M-9 (Subfactor Risk Definitions). The risk ratings will not be rolled up to the Management factor level. The Government will evaluate risks associated with each Management subfactor. Assessment of management risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), significant weakness(es), and deficiencies, considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

M-11.0 FACTOR F8: Cost/Price

The Price Factor will not receive a color rating. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404. Information in the proposal and information from other sources such as DCAA, DCMA, and information obtained by the past performance evaluation team may be considered under the cost/price factor.

M-11.1 Cost risk

The Government will evaluate proposals for cost risk. Proposed prices that are unreasonably high or unrealistically low create an unacceptable level of cost risk. Throughout the cost/price factor evaluation, the Government will consider the cost risk in conjunction with price and cost analysis to verify that the proposed prices are affordable, reasonable and realistic.

M-11.2 Affordability

An affordable proposal does not force the Government to make unacceptable budget trade-offs.

Any unaffordable proposal, including an otherwise superior proposal, may be eliminated from consideration for contract award by the SSA.

M-11.3 Price Reasonableness

Since the Government anticipates adequate price competition, the Government will in general verify price reasonableness by comparison of competitively proposed prices. Therefore, offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data. If after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist, the Government may require certified cost or pricing data (see FAR 15.406-2, Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data).

M-11.4 Cost Realism

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 SSEB’s cost realism analysis will assess the proposed types and quantities of labor as well as the direct and indirect rates used to develop all proposed costs and the likelihood that the proposed technical and management approach can successfully accomplish the requirements at the proposed price.

The 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 SSEB will make the following adjustments to the proposed cost to arrive at the evaluated probable cost:

Adjustments to hours and other resources based on the management and technical evaluation teams’ cost realism analysis of proposed resources.

Adjustments to proposed direct and indirect rates/costs, to realistic levels.

M-11.5 Cost Price Factor Evaluation Results

The SSEB will provide the SSA with the Government’s overall evaluated cost and price for consideration in making the best value determination which will consist of the following:

The Government’s estimate of the realistic cost of successfully completing the cost reimbursable CLINs using the Offeror’s unique approach and the incentive fee calculated based on the probable costs for those CLINs.

The Government specified/NTE amounts for travel.

The total amount of any additional costs to the Government which are necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach (e.g. costs associated with the use of Government Furnished Property (GFP)/ Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)/ etc.).

Any cost issues that increase cost risk identified by price and cost analysis and cost risks resulting from ambiguities due to poor proposal quality.