Section_M_Oct_16.pdf

Table of Contents

M-1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

M-1.1 Contract Award

M-1.2 Evaluation of Options

M-1.3 Basis for Contract Award

M-1.4 Discussions

M-1.5 Competitive Range

M-1.6 Final Proposal Revisions

M-1.7 Evaluation Notices

M-1.8 Contracting Officer’s Responsibility Determination

M-2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS, RELATIVE ORDER OF

IMPORTANCE, TECHNICAL EVALUATION DEFINITIONS AND RATINGS

M-2.1 Evaluation Factors and Sub factors

TABLE M-1: Evaluation Factors/Sub factors and Ratings

M-2.2 Relative Order of Importance of Factors and Sub factors

M-2.3 Evaluation Ratings and Definitions

M-2.3.1 Factors 1 and 2 Acceptable / Unacceptable Rating and Definition

TABLE M-2: Factors 1 and 2 Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings and Definitions

M-2.3.2 Factor 3 Acceptable / Unacceptable Rating and Definition

TABLE M-3: Factor 3 Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings and Definitions

M-2.3.3 Evaluation Definitions

TABLE M-4: Evaluation Definitions

M-2.3.4 Factor 4 and 5 Separate Technical / Risk Ratings and Descriptions

TABLE M-5: Technical Ratings and Definitions

TABLE M-6: Technical Risk Rating Method

M-3.0 FACTOR 1: INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CONTROL PLAN

M-4.0 FACTOR 2: TRANSITION PLAN

M-4.1 Sub factor 1: Recruitment

M-4.2 Sub factor 2: On-Board Processing

M-5.0 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

M-5.1 Recency

TABLE M-7: Recency Ratings and Definitions

M-5.2 Relevancy Assessment

TABLE M-8: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings and Definitions

M-5.3 Quality Assessment

TABLE M-9: Quality Definitions for Past Performance

M-5.5 Adverse Past Performance

M-6.0 FACTOR 4: ARC TECHNICAL

M-6.1 Sub factor 1: Network and Schedule Management /Asset Allocation

M-6.2 Sub factor 2: Test Support

M-6.3 Sub factor 3: Cybersecurity

M-6.4 Sub factor 4: Network Design (Task Instructions)

M-7.0 FACTOR 5: CONTRACT AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

M-7.1 Sub factor 1: Program Management Approach

M-7.2 Subfactor2: Technical Staffing and Recruitment/Retention Approach (duration of the contract)

M-8.0 FACTOR 6: COST/PRICE FACTOR

M-8.1 Reasonableness

M-8.2 Cost Realism

M-8.3 Affordability

M-8.4 Additional Costs to the Government

M-8.5 Cost/Price Factor Evaluation Results

M-1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

M-1.1 Contract Award The Government intends to award a Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) contract with CPAF-LOE, CPFF-LOE, and Cost-only non-labor CLINs contract. The contract will have a base period of five years with three one-year options. The government reserves the right to make no award at all.

M-1.2 Evaluation of Options 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). (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.217-5)

M-1.3 Basis for Contract Award The source selection will be conducted using the best value subjective tradeoff process described in FAR 15.101-1 and the source selection procedures described in FAR subpart 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3 and the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures dated March 31, 2016. To be eligible for award, the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1; meet the requirements of the solicitation; conform to the required terms and conditions; and, include all required certifications.

The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of all aspects of the evaluation factors and sub factors to include Cost and Price.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic, including contract terms and conditions, program commitments, 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. The Government anticipates adequate price competition. The Government will in general verify price reasonableness by comparison of competitively proposed prices.

Furthermore, non-conformance with the instructions provided may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation, or rejection of an offeror’s proposal prior to evaluation, rendering it ineligible for award. Non-conformance includes failure to submit all volumes described in Table L-1 both in hard copy and electronic formats, outlined in the format and limitations as set forth in the RFP. When the electronic format differs from the hard copy, the electronic format will prevail.

M-1.4 Discussions The Government may award a contract without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 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 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.

M-1.5 Competitive Range If discussions are to be conducted, the PCO will establish a competitive range (as set forth in FAR 15.306(c)) 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 subpart 15.503.

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.

M-1.6 Final Proposal Revisions If discussions are deemed necessary with offeror(s), upon completion of those discussions, the PCO will request that the offeror provide a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). Revisions to any volume(s) shall be submitted, as directed by the PCO, by providing the requested “clean” and “tracked changes” copies. Matching DVD-R copies shall also be submitted. The FPR 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 FPR instruction(s).

The offeror is advised that any changes to the proposal in the FPR shall be fully addressed and/or explained and reflected in the proposed price. Failure to comply with this requirement can adversely influence the evaluation of the proposal. The PCO will establish a common due date and time for submission of the FPR.

When final proposal revisions are requested, any revisions or non-compliance with contract terms and conditions submitted in the final proposal revision may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government and ineligible for award. However, the government reserves the right to continue the evaluation process without further notification or discussions and the offeror may receive an unfavorable rating. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures, e.g., prices, discounts, or percentage rates. Rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government that could result if new or revised terms and conditions submitted in the final proposal revision 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-1.7 Evaluation Notices The Government may need to conduct written exchanges with offerors, which will be in the form of an Evaluation Notice (EN). Page format and limitations will be placed on responses to ENs 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.

M-1.8 Contracting Officer’s Responsibility Determination Information submitted in Volumes I of the proposal will be reviewed by the Government for compliance with the solicitation and will also be used, along with any other information available to the Government, to determine an offeror’s responsibility consistent with the requirements of FAR 9.104.

M-2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS, RELATIVE ORDER OF

IMPORTANCE, TECHNICAL EVALUATION DEFINITIONS AND RATINGS

M-2.1 Evaluation Factors and Sub factors The evaluation factors, sub factors, and evaluation ratings identified in Table M-1 will be used to evaluate each proposal. Sub factors ratings will not be rolled up to a single factor rating.

TABLE M-1: Evaluation Factors/Sub factors and Ratings Evaluation Rating: Acceptable / Unacceptable Factor 1: Information Management Control Plan Factor 2: Transition Plan Transition Sub factor 1: Recruitment Transition Sub factor 2: On-Board Processing Factor 3: Past Performance Evaluation Rating: Technical Rating and Risk Rating Factor 4: ARC Technical

Technical Sub factor 1: Network and Schedule Management /Asset Allocation Technical Sub factor 2: Test Support Technical Sub factor 3: Cybersecurity Technical Sub factor 4: Network Design – Task Instructions

Factor 5: Contract and Program Management Management Sub factor 1: Program Management Approach Management Sub factor 2: Technical Staffing and Recruitment/Retention Approach (duration of the contract) Evaluation: Total Evaluated Price Factor 6: Cost and Price

M-2.2 Relative Order of Importance of Factors and Sub factors

a) Proposals assessed as unacceptable in Factors 1 – 3 are not eligible for award. The selection decision will document tradeoffs between Factors 4, 5, and 6 in the competitive range receiving an acceptable rating for Factors 1-3.

b) Factors 4 and 5, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 6. Factor 6 will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value.

c) Factor 4 is more important than Factor 5.

d) Factor 4 the sub factors are equal.

e) Factor 5 sub factor 1 is more important than Factor 5 sub factor 2.

M-2.3 Evaluation Ratings and Definitions

M-2.3.1 Factors 1 and 2 Acceptable / Unacceptable Rating and Definition Factor 1 will be evaluated on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis as described in section M-3.0.

Factor 2 will be evaluated on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis using the Table M-2 ratings.

TABLE M-2: Factors 1 and 2 Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings and Definitions Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M-2.3.2 Factor 3 Acceptable / Unacceptable Rating and Definition Factor 3 will be evaluated on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis using the Table M-3 ratings.

TABLE M-3: Factor 3 Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings and Definitions Rating Definition

Acceptable

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

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of 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 past performance. In the context of Acceptability / Unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

M-2.3.3 Evaluation Definitions Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation factors and sub factors established in the solicitation. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies as defined in Table M-4.

TABLE M-4: Evaluation Definitions 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-2.3.4 Factor 4 and 5 Separate Technical / Risk Ratings and Descriptions The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the overall technical capability and approach of each offeror. The offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with the technical approach. Each sub factor in Factors 4 and 5 will receive a Technical rating as described in table M-5 and a Technical Risk Rating as described in table M- 6.

TABLE M-5: Technical Ratings and Definitions

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

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

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

TABLE M-6: Technical Risk Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness (es) which have 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

M-3.0 FACTOR 1: INFORMATION MANAGEMENT CONTROL PLAN

The Government will evaluate the overall plan(s) of each offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP) to ensure it:

1. Addresses procedures for determining the need to transmit CUI.

2. Identifies internal mechanisms to determine the amount of CUI deemed necessary to transmit.

3. Addresses accountability procedures used to safeguard CUI.

4. Addresses procedures for monitoring subcontractor compliance with DFARS clause

252.204-7012 (DFARS 7012).

5. Addresses procedures for reporting a cyber-incident as defined in DFARS 7012.

6. Addresses all NIST 800-171 r1 controls for its own applicable network in its SSP and

POAM.

7. Controls identified in the POAM are resolved within one year after contract award, or a reasonable period of time agreed to by the Contracting Officer.

8. Address controls in place to enforce flow down of DFARS 7012 and prime contractor

IMCP procedures to all applicable subcontractors and vendors.

An IMCP will be determined to be “Acceptable” if the plan addresses the policies/procedures identified above.

Offerors that receive an “Unacceptable” rating for the IMCP after discussions, if discussions are held, will be removed from consideration for award.

M-4.0 FACTOR 2: TRANSITION PLAN

The Government will evaluate the overall Transition Plan of each offeror. The Government will evaluate whether or not the proposal demonstrates an effective approach to:

M-4.1 Sub factor 1: Recruitment Describing and providing a detailed rationale for proposed recruitment approach in meeting the requirements of the PWS.

M-4.2 Sub factor 2: On-Board Processing Describing and providing a detailed rationale to include a 90-day resource loaded Integrated Master Schedule for identifying qualified candidates, processing necessary hiring packages, executing badge requests, and other administrative detail to ensure that the Contractor has the ability and plan in place to complete the transition period within 90 days. Integrated Master Schedules can be saved into a PDF format for electronic versions and embedded into Microsoft Word for hard copy versions.

Factor 2 will receive an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating as defined in Table M-2.

M-5.0 FACTOR 3: 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. Based on an integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and quality, the Government will assign a single, overall past performance rating as defined at Table M-3.

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, Procuring Contracting Officers (PCOs), and Fee Determining Officials; and, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

Even though the evaluation of acceptability of Past Performance is separate and distinct from Determination of Responsibility required by FAR subpart 9.1, past performance information contained herein may be used to support the Determination of Responsibility for the successful offeror. Information provided on the Past Performance Questionnaires assists the evaluation team in determining the acceptability for past performance.

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

1.7. The Government will not consider the past performance of any contractors that are not covered under a valid subcontract or teaming agreement.

M-5.1 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.

TABLE M-7: Recency Ratings and Definitions Rating Definition Recent Date of Solicitation release – 5 years

Not Recent The contract does not meet the definition of Recent.

M-5.2 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 subcontractors and/or subsidiaries. Relevancy for the offeror’s past contracts will be assigned in accordance with the definitions outlined in Table M-8 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. Similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities include Network Engineering, Asset Management in a complex environment, and test support in CI/CAT environment, Cybersecurity protection/defense. A single relevancy rating will be assessed for each recent PPI.

TABLE M-8: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings and Definitions Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar 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-5.3 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 quality definitions in Table M-9 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-9: Quality Definitions for Past Performance Rating Definition

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

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

M-5.5 Adverse Past Performance Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that is: 1) data from a recent and at least somewhat relevant contract; and 2) which the offeror has not had an opportunity to respond through a formal rating system; and 3) which negatively impacts the performance confidence assessment. 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. Such communications shall address adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not had a prior opportunity to respond. Furthermore, the PCO must discuss adverse past performance with each offeror still being considered for award.

M-6.0 FACTOR 4: ARC TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the overall technical capability and approach of each offeror.

The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding and sound approach to the following sub factors.

Each sub factor will receive a Technical Rating as described in table M-5 and a Technical Risk Rating as described in table M-6.

The Total Resource Volume will be used to ensure the offeror has a clear understanding of the work to be accomplished. The approach must also be accurately reflected in the Total Resource Volume.

M-6.1 Sub factor 1: Network and Schedule Management /Asset Allocation The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding and sound approach to:

a) Execute help desk functions as a method of ensuring configuration control, test asset management/metrics, and incident recovery.

b) Innovation through tool development for scheduling, configuration management, and asset de-confliction.

c) Manage IT infrastructure and networks comprised of commercial and tactical systems to include asset allocation and de-confliction, configuration management, and Integrated Master Schedule development, management, and execution.

d) Recommend annual technology refresh options with coordination of BMDS lab expansion, CI/CAT implementation, and HWIL configuration control procedures.

M-6.2 Sub factor 2: Test Support The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding and sound approach to:

a) Integration and network set-up for test event configuration.

b) Test Event Certification and development of Certification Data packages.

M-6.3 Sub factor 3: Cybersecurity The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding and sound approach to:

a) Implement Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs), and Cyber Tasking Orders (CTOs) processes and Cybersecurity Defense.

b) Cybersecurity considerations as related to Test Support and IT Asset Management activities in OPSEC/STIG Environment.

c) Cybersecurity compliance and expertise in the areas of Risk Management Framework as it relates to IT Infrastructure and networks.

M-6.4 Sub factor 4: Network Design (Task Instructions) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding and sound approach to:

a) The BMDS and Network Design solutions necessary to support current BMDS capabilities and BMDA expansions within the ARC to include additional HWIL assets or new BMDS representation/HWIL assets.

b) Design, develop, and execute innovative network design/solutions for future ARC architecture in support of the new Combined Test Center (CTC) and related expansion of BMDS capability, and CI/CAT.

The Government intends to award TI 001 (J-12a - ARC Follow On - Task Instruction 001 Network Design) at contract award for a period of 12 months.

M-7.0 FACTOR 5: CONTRACT AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The Government will evaluate the contract and management approach of each offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding and sound approach to the following sub factors. Each sub factor will receive a Technical rating as described in table M-5 and a Technical Risk Rating as described in table M-6.

M-7.1 Sub factor 1: Program Management Approach The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s approach clearly demonstrates an effective approach to:

1. Managing cost, schedule, and technical performance;

2. Identification of substandard performance and effective implementation of corrective actions;

3. Defining effective lines of authority and communication, key personnel, functional relationships, processes, and roles and responsibilities;

4. Manage teaming partners and/or subcontractor relationships;

5. Processes for tracking status and prioritizing tasks.

M-7.2 Subfactor2: Technical Staffing and Recruitment/Retention Approach (duration of the contract) This sub factor measures the degree to which the offeror comprehends the PWS based on its proposed technical staffing approach to meeting requirements, to include appropriate labor skill mix, key personnel, education and/or experience, and team composition. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s proposed Key Personnel clearly demonstrate the offerors understanding of each of the emphasized areas in Technical Subfactor1, Technical Subfactor 2, Technical Subfactor 3, and Technical Subfactor 4 for the ARC Follow-On Contract.

M-8.0 FACTOR 6: COST/PRICE FACTOR

The Cost/Price Factor will not receive a color rating and the Government will only evaluate the Cost/Price Factor for proposals being considered for inclusion in competitive range that are substantially complete and compliant with the RFP instructions for all volumes. The Government will not evaluate the Cost/Price Factor for selection purposes on unacceptable proposals. The Government will evaluate each such proposal using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404 and FAR 52.222-46. Information in the proposal and information from sources outside the proposal such as Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) may be considered under the Cost/Price factor in its evaluation.

M-8.1 Reasonableness Since the Government anticipates adequate price competition, the Government expects to verify price reasonableness by comparing 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 15.403-4).

M-8.2 Cost Realism In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, a cost realism analysis will be performed. 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 ARC Technical, Contract and Program Management, and total resources volumes.

The cost realism analysis will assess whether proposed labor hours and skill mix, direct and indirect rates, and RFP specified amounts of material and other direct costs/travel reflect a clear understanding of the requirement, are consistent with the Offeror’s ARC Technical, Contract and Program Management, and total resources approach, and are realistic for the work to be performed.

For cost type CLINs, the result of cost realism analysis is the probable cost. The probable cost is determined by adjusting each Offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. Therefore, the probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. Probable Cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. The Government will only calculate a probable cost for awardable proposals.

M-8.3 Affordability An affordable proposal complies with the funding limitation IAW Section L-12.4. Any unaffordable proposal, including an otherwise superior proposal, may be eliminated from consideration for contract award by the Source Selection Authority (SSA).

M-8.4 Additional Costs to the Government The amount of any additional costs to the Government which are necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach will be considered by the Government when making the best value determination. Additional costs to the Government does not include the GFP items listed in Section J of this RFP. These items are intended to be available to all Offerors and the use of these items will not be considered a discriminator during selection. Items such as increased operating cost resulting from Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), information, or facilities, may be included in this category of cost. For Government Property proposed to be used on a RFNI use basis, a rental equivalent evaluation factor will be applied as specified in FAR 52.245-9 (Use and Charges).

M-8.5 Cost/Price Factor Evaluation Results The SSEB’s cost realism analysis on the cost reimbursement CLINs will be used in the total evaluated price calculation. The total evaluated price will be used to determine best value.

The Offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the five-year base period and three 1-year options.

The total evaluated price is the sum of:

a) The Government’s probable cost of successfully completing the cost type CLINs, including the 6 month option to extend the term of the contract.

b) The proposed Base plus Award Fee for the CPAF CLINs.

c) The proposed Notional Fixed Fee for the CPFF CLINs.

d) The total amount of any additional costs to the Government, which are necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach.

M-5.5 Adverse Past Performance