DRFP TEAMS-Next C3PO Sec M 17 Dec 19.pdf

Approved for Public Release 19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19)

HQ0858-20-R-0001

TEAMS-Next Contracting, Compliance, Cost/Price and

Operations

(C3PO)

DRAFT Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

17 December 2019

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY/DEFINITIONS

4.0 FACTOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY

5.0 FACTOR 2: INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL PLAN (IMCP)

6.0 FACTOR 3: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN

7.0 FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

8.0 FACTOR 5: COST AND PRICE

9.0 OTHER CONTRACTING CONSIDERATIONS

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19)

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

This attachment will be removed upon award of the contract.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ proposals in accordance with (IAW) the criteria specified in this section. The Government intends to 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). The Government reserves the right to make an award or no award.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

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 9.1; meet the requirements of the solicitation; conform to the required terms and conditions; and, include all required certifications. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offerors shall submit one proposal. The proposal shall be, discretely priced, and fully compliant with all stated terms, conditions, and performance requirements set forth in this solicitation. Page limits and all other proposal preparation instructions in this RFP apply to the proposal. 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.

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 price, 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. Further, the Government may reject any proposal that is incomplete (e.g., missing Volume).

Section M

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19)

2.3 The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Cost and Price. Mission Capability includes five (5) subfactors: Source Selection and Policy Support (MCS1), Contract Cost/Pricing Support (MCS2), Acquisition Support (MCS3), E-Business Support (MCS4), and Human Capital Management (MCS5). All subfactors are equal in importance.

At the factor level, Mission Capability is more important than Past Performance; and when combined, Mission Capability and Past Performance are substantially more important than Cost and Price. However, the significance of Cost and Price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in overall merit of competing proposals in meeting solicitation requirements. Cost and Price will not be scored, but will be evaluated as part of the integrated assessment of best value. The Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP) factor and OCI Management Plan factor will be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any proposal with an Unacceptable IMCP or OCI Management Plan factor rating is not eligible for award.

2.4 Award may be made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price differential. The selection decision will document tradeoffs between Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Cost and Price for offers with an “Acceptable” rating for IMCP and OCI Management Plan.

2.5 MDA Intent to Award without Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms for Mission Capability, Past Performance, IMCP, OCI Management Plan, and Cost and Price. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the PCO later determines them to be necessary.

Discussions (if required) 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. Responses from Offerors may be required within two business days.

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 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. The ENs may be sent electronically (i.e., via e-mail) at the discretion of the PCO. Offerors must submit responses by the time and date specified in the PCO letter accompanying the ENs.

2.6 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

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19) should not be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. A written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful Offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 and 15.506, respectively. 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.

2.7 Final Proposal Revisions (FPR)

If discussions are deemed necessary with Offeror(s), upon completion of those discussions, the PCO will request that the Offeror provide a FPR.

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.

Any proposal changes not clearly identified in the Offeror’s FPR will not be considered.

If FPRs are requested, any revisions or non-compliance with contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may 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, or percentage rates) but is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government (that could result if new or revised terms and conditions submitted in the FPR have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations). Thus, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

2.8 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, and instructions contained in Section L, may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award; this includes incomplete proposal submission (e.g., missing Volumes in hard copy and electronic format).

2.9 Contracting Officer’s Responsibility Determination

Prior to awarding a contract, the PCO must perform a responsibility determination for the selected contractor. The standards of contractor responsibility and the requirement for the PCO to make and document a responsibility determination are set forth in FAR 9.104 and 9.105. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must:

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19)

4.1 Subfactor MCS1: Source Selection and Policy Support Capability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Source Selection and Policy Support capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach to, and understanding of, elements #1, #2, and #3 to include the corporate resources and requisite experiences to accomplish the mission tasks:

Element #1: Procurement Management Review (PMR) Support. Preparing, executing, outbriefing, and training associated with a comprehensive PMR including development and promulgation of lessons learned for future PMRs.

Element #2: Policy Formulation and Compliance. Reviewing, formulating and promulgating contract policy from statutory, regulatory, and local (Agency) environments; includes directives, manuals, issuances, templates, instructions, and procedures. Offeror’s approach for policy compliance reviews of contract documentation, as well as policy advice to Procuring Contracting Officers and Directors of Contracts.

Element #3: Source Selection Advisory Support. Implementing multiple concurrent competitive source selections, to include RFP development support, exchanges with Industry, Red Team review of source selection documentation, source selection execution advisory support (including Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) caucuses, Proposal Analysis Report (PAR), Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) development and SSA briefing), and post-award debriefing support. Consider competitive environments for services, systems, as well as non-FAR methods such as Other Transactions.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed resume for each key staff positions identified in Element #4; to include an evaluation of how the Offeror plans to staff knowledgeable and capable personnel to meet the SOW 3.2.2 requirements and associated SOW 4.3.1.7 qualifications of the following element:

Element #4: Key Staff Position defined as Contract Program Manager (CPM). Key staff position resume for the CPM that addresses the following qualifications from SOW 4.3.1.7:

Contract Program Manager (Key Staff Position)

SOW (para 3.1 & 3.2)

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19)

Functional Description:

• BA/BS and 25 years directly related experience in federal contracting discipline

• Former Director of Contracts (managing 50+ employees) for a DoD buying activity

• 10+ years combined DoD procurement experience with ACAT I systems development and

A&AS

• Experience in internal review, formulation and promulgation of contract policy and DCMA

PMR experience

• Previous DAWIA Certification Level III in Contracting or equivalent

4.2 Subfactor MCS2: Contract Cost/Pricing Support Capability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Contract Cost/Pricing Support capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime/subcontractor, joint venture) approach to, and understanding of, element #5 to include the corporate resources and requisite experiences to accomplish the mission tasks:

Element #5: Sole Source Procurements. Executing cost/price analysis of multi-billion dollar systems acquisitions, to include complex modeling techniques (advanced Excel functions such as SUMIF, VLOOKUP, pivot tables) as well as design and implementation of cost models for purposes of what-if analysis, negotiations support, and price objective development.

Addressing analytical approach for developing price objectives and real-time support to negotiations (to include quick-turn revisions and what-if analysis). Addressing steps in evaluating reasonableness and realism of contractor proposed price and underlying quantitative aspects of proposals (e.g., resources and rates), utilizing various methods (e.g. forecasting, learning curves, and /or regression analysis).

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed resume for the key staff position identified in Element #6 to include an evaluation of how the Offeror plans to staff knowledgeable and capable personnel to meet the SOW 3.2.3 requirements and associated SOW 4.3.1.7 qualifications of the following element:

Element #6: Key Staff Position defined as Cost/Price Lead. Key staff position resume for the Cost/Price Lead that addresses the following qualifications from SOW 4.3.1.7:

CTQ Cost/Price Analyst Lead (Advanced)

(Key Staff Position) SOW (para 3.2.3)

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19)

Functional Description:

• BA/BS and 20 years total relevant experience as a cost/price analyst for a DoD buying activity and/or as a cost/price analyst, proposal analyst, project control analyst, or cost accountant at DoD contractor.

• 10+ years’ experience conducting cost/price analysis of complex cost-type proposals for major systems development and production in a sole source environment for a DoD buying activity.

• 3+ years’ experience conducting cost/price analysis in competitive source selections.

• Direct experience developing fully-integrated formula-driven MS Excel cost models to calculate the proposed, objective, and negotiated amounts by cost element and CLIN, with focus on VLOOKUP and SUMIFS formulas.

• Experience in forecasting, learning curves, and regression analysis.

4.3 Subfactor MCS3: Acquisition Support Capability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Acquisition Support capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach to, and understanding of, element #7 to include the corporate resources and requisite experiences to accomplish the mission tasks:

Element #7: Acquisition Analysis and Support. Supporting procurement operations, to the DA/DAP core program planning, policy, program execution and acquisition strategy support functions. Providing programmatic and Acquisition Analysis for the DA front office and the DAP Director across the MDA acquisition lifecycle pertaining to both acquisition of weapons systems and services.

4.4 Subfactor MCS4: E-Business Support Capability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s E-Business Support capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach to, and understanding of, element #8 to include the corporate resources and requisite experiences to accomplish the mission tasks:

Element #8: E-Business Service Desk Support. Providing system administration, help-desk support, and user training for various E-business automated Department of Defense (DoD) systems to include the Procurement Desktop Defense (PD2)/Standard Procurement System (SPS), the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE), and beta.SAM.gov.

Addressing capability to provide fully trained personnel on the first day of full contract responsibility and throughout performance.

4.5 Subfactor MCS5: Human Capital Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Human Capital Management capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach to, and understanding of, elements #9 and #10 to include the corporate resources and requisite

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19) experiences to accomplish the mission tasks:

Element #9: Recruiting & Retaining Personnel. Process of recruiting and retaining qualified personnel. Recruiting techniques, compensation plan/benefits, and other associated incentives, and a training plan to ensure seamless support. Transition plan detailing on-boarding, security clearances, training needs, kickoff meetings, and any other actions required to ensure full contract responsibility after the completion of the 30 day transition period. Validate capability to provide fully qualified and trained personnel upon award and post-award oversight, training, and management of resources to ensure seamless transition of employees throughout performance.

Element #10: Problem Resolution Strategy. Problem resolution strategy, to include:

a) Negative performance at the individual level

b) Negative performance at the macro level (e.g. an entire function such as pricing)

c) Personnel conduct issues (timecard fraud, truancy, behavior/conduct, customer complaint resolution)

5.0 FACTOR 2: INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL PLAN (IMCP)

The Government will evaluate the overall plan(s) of each Offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s IMCP to ensure it:

a) Addresses procedures for determining the need to transmit CUI.

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

c) Addresses accountability procedures used to safeguard CUI.

d) Addresses procedures for monitoring subcontractor compliance with DFARS 252.204-

7012.

e) Addresses procedures for reporting a cyber-incident as defined in DFARS 252.204-7012.

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

POAM.

g) 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.

h) Address controls in place to enforce flow down of DFARS 252.204-7012 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.

An Offeror that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for the IMCP is not eligible for award.

6.0 FACTOR 3: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to the management of Organizational Conflicts of Interest in a comprehensive OCI Management Plan. The plan will be incorporated

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19) into the contract via CDRL A005 after award and shall be updated as required during the term of the contract. The Government will evaluate the approach to OCI management in the following areas:

a) Self-certification that the C3PO proposal is OCI-free; specifically, that the Prime and all subcontractors at all tiers do not support any MDA-funded contract requirements (whether via MDA contract or other Government agency).

b) The procedures for detecting, eliminating, and reporting any conflicts at any tier;

specifically, identify subcontract policies, practices, and penalties the Contractor will utilize to ensure its subcontractors at all tiers proactively identify and report conflicts.

c) The procedures for protecting agency information that could lead to an unfair competitive advantage if disclosed; specifically, collecting disclosure agreements covering all individuals, subcontractors, and other entities with access to agency-sensitive information, and physical safeguards.

d) Enforcement mechanisms, procedures, and training to ensure promulgation to employees and subcontractors at all tiers (with emphasis on consequences for failing to comply with an OCI-free policy).

e) Processes for identifying and eliminating potential conflicts associated with the employment of recently separated federal Government employees (military or civilian) that may have had unequal, non-public access to TEAMS or TEAMS-Next information.

If an Offeror fails to demonstrate an effective approach in each of the above areas (a-e), it will be assigned an “Unacceptable” rating for OCI Management Plan. An Offeror that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for OCI Management Plan is not eligible for award.

7.0 FACTOR 4: 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 in Table M-9. 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, information 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.

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19)

The Government will conduct a performance assessment on recent and relevant contracts based upon the quality of the Offeror’s past performance as well as that of its subcontractors. Based on an evaluation of recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance information from the identified contracts, the Past Performance Evaluation Team will determine an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating at the factor level.

7.1 Recency Assessment

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.

7.2 Relevancy Assessment

If the past performance information is recent, a 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 subcontractor(s). This area demonstrates the depth and breadth of relevant experience of the Offeror.

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. A single relevancy rating will be assessed for each recent PPI.

In assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to the following:

a) Element #1: PMR Support

b) Element #2: Policy Formulation and Compliance

c) Element #3: Source Selection Advisory Support

d) Element #5: Sole Source Procurements

e) Element #7: Acquisition Analysis and Support

Relevancy for the Offeror’s past contracts will be assigned in accordance with the definitions outlined in Table M-7 below.

TABLE M-7: Factor 4 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Rating Descriptions

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.

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19)

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.

7.3 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 factor 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-8 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-8: Factor 4 Past Performance Quality Definitions Rating Rating Definition

Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The performance of areas being assessed was accomplished with few minor issues or concerns.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The performance of areas being assessed was accomplished with few minor issues or concerns, for which the Contractor’s corrective actions were highly effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The performance of the areas being assessed contains minor issues or concerns, for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were ff i

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The performance of the areas being assessed includes significant problems, issues, or concerns for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were only somewhat effective.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirement. The performance of the areas being assessed includes serious problems, issues, or concerns for which the Contractor’s corrective actions were i ff i

N/A No information or did not apply to your contract. Unable to provide assessment.

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19)

7.4 Past Performance Rating

Based on the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality ratings assessed for each PPI, an overall Past Performance rating (as defined at Table M-9) will be assessed for each Offeror.

TABLE M-9: Factor 4 Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings 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.

Neutral Confidence

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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past

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.

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 “Neutral Confidence.” A record of “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” Confidence will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a record of “Neutral Confidence.”

7.5 Adverse Past Performance

Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that supports a less than acceptable rating 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 15.306(b)(1)(i), communications must be held with any Offeror whose

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19) 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.

8.0 FACTOR 5: COST AND PRICE

The Cost and 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 and Price Factor. The evaluation will include the two-year base period, 1st one-year option, 2nd one-year option, 3rd one-year option, Option CLIN 0001 “Emergent Requirements” and the 6 month option to extend services.

8.1 Professional Employee Total Compensation

Prices that are insufficient to cover direct labor costs and benefit costs plus other burdens and fee/profit, is a failure to comply with the provisions in FAR 52.222-46(a) and will result in the proposal being rejected by the PCO in accordance with FAR 52.222-46(d).

8.2 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.

8.3 Reasonableness

Since the Government anticipates adequate price competition, the Government will 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 in accordance with DFARS 252.215-7008.

8.4 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 and reflect a clear understanding of the requirements.

For CPFF LOE CLINs, the result of cost realism analysis is the probable post. 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. Probable cost will be used to determine the best value. The Government’s probable cost will result from adjustments to the proposed cost to

19-MDA-10290 (11 Dec 19) realistic levels based on a cost realism analysis of the proposed direct and indirect rates.

8.5 Cost and Price Factor Evaluation Results

The SSEB will provide the following results of its analysis of the cost/price factor to the SSA for consideration in making the best value decision.

a) Any qualitative cost issues

b) The total evaluated price for the total contract effort. The total evaluated price will consist of the sum of the following:

1. The probable cost of all CPFF LOE CLINs plus the proposed fixed fee amounts.

2. The travel and ODC CLINs at the Government provided amount.

The amount of any additional costs to the Government necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach.

9.0 OTHER CONTRACTING CONSIDERATIONS

TBD