Final_RFP_Section_M.docx

HSHQDC-15-R-00050

SECTION M

SECTION M—EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD:

Section Table of Contents

M.1 Clauses/Provisions Incorporated by Reference:

a. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clauses/Provisions:

Date

b. Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) Clauses/Provisions:

M.2 Best Value Award Consideration:

The Government intends to award a contract to a single responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the overall best value to the Government after evaluation in accordance with the factors and sub-factors in the solicitation. The best value proposal will be selected by the Government using a best-value tradeoff process, as defined in FAR 15.101-1, which permits tradeoffs to be made among cost/price and non-cost/price factors. Accordingly, the Government may accept other than the lowest cost/price proposal where the perceived benefits of the higher cost/price proposal merit the additional cost/price. Conversely, the Government may select the lower cost/price, lower rated proposal if the Government determines that the premium associated with the higher-rated proposal is not justified. In making the best value determination, the Government will consider technical merit (e.g., all non-cost/price factors) to be more important than Cost/Price. However, the importance of the Cost/Price factor, as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in overall technical merit of competing proposals, under the non-cost/price factors.

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors and sub-factors that are listed below:

Factor 1—Management and Technical Approach:

· Sub-factor A—Management Approach;

· Sub-factor B—Technical Approach;

· Sub-factor C—Quality Control and Regulatory Compliance; and

· Sub-factor D—Transition Approach

Factor 2—Past Performance

Factor 3—Small Business Participation

Factor 4—Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Approach

Factor 5—Cost/Price

a. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Management and Technical Approach addresses the items in Section L of this solicitation in a way that is likely to meet all the requirements defined in the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Management and Technical Approach in order to perform the following actions: (1) determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements; assess the risk with the Offeror’s approach; and (3) determine the Offeror’s capabilities to perform these technical requirements including, but not limited to, NBACC Core Support Operations, Biological Threat Characterization Center (BTCC) Support, and National Bioforensic Analysis Center (NBFAC) Support. The Government will also assess the Offeror’s technical competence in order to determine the credibility and the soundness of the Offeror’s Management and Technical Approach, including its ability to understand and solve key technical problems and its ability to meet project/delivery schedules and performance requirements.

b. For this Factor, an Evaluation Rating will be assigned. The Evaluation Rating evaluates the Offeror’s Technical and Management Approach for meeting the Government’s requirements. The Evaluation Rating is an assessment of compliance with the solicitation requirements and merit which considers the benefits and detriments related to program performance and operations. The degree of benefit to the Government associated a strength(s) will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s approach and understanding of the requirements rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. The Evaluation rating also takes into account the risk associated with the Offeror’s Technical and Management Approach in meeting the requirement, including the potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

c. IMPORTANT NOTE—Offerors are hereby advised that during the evaluation process, an Evaluation Rating of “Unsatisfactory” may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

M.3.2.1.1 Sub-factor A—Management Approach

a. The Government will use the following criteria (all of equal importance) to evaluate this sub-factor:

1. Criterion 1—Program/Management Approach—the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Management Approach in order to determine the degree to which the Offeror’s approach will result in the highly efficient/effective operation of the NBACC facility that meets the solicitation requirements. The Government, in the evaluation of the overall management approach, will review the following items/actions:

i. Understanding of the Work: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work based on the information required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the clarity, completeness of the information, the soundness and completeness of the assumptions and technical approach to requirements; the understanding of the complex and highly technically specialized maintenance and analysis and the understanding of the uncertainties and difficulties associated with this type of requirement.

ii. Management Plan—the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed management plan based on the information required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate for clarity, completeness of the information, and the extent to which the proposed processes and procedures ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the SOW.

iii. The extent to which the Offeror’s program management approaches identifies the organization with clear lines of authority of all staff members (including subcontractors)

iv. The extent to which the NBACC Laboratory Director’s authority in relation to other functional directors/managers at the NBACC facility. The authority of the NBACC Laboratory Director will be evaluated in order to determine if the NBACC Laboratory Director has been provided the requisite authority, responsibility, and accountability to direct, assign resources, and manage the successful accomplishment of all aspects of program management, including schedule management, quality workmanship, and cost control

v. The extent to which the Offeror’s Management Approach demonstrates its overall management approach to operating a Bio-Security Level 4 (BSL-4) facility.

IMPORTANT NOTE--It is important to note that for those Offerors without documented experience, the Government will evaluate the required information in its proposal explaining how it would obtain the required experience and expertise to safely operate a BSL-4 facility.

vi. Manpower/Staffing Requirements—the Government will review the Offeror’s projected staffing plan for the first five years (anticipating full performance of the Statement of Work) to determine the Offeror’s ability to provide skilled personnel to perform the requirements that are identified in the Statement of Work found in Section C of this solicitation . The Government will review the procedures for the recruitment and retention of highly qualified staff members. In addition, the Government will also review the narrative rationale to support the proposed staffing plan and the proposed labor categories. The Government will evaluate clearances, education, and relevant experience for all proposed labor categories. The Offeror’s description of its ability to provide trained personnel to support surge requirements or overcome manpower shortfalls will be evaluated by the Government.

vii. Risk Management—the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s identified key cost, schedule, performance, and technical risks and why they were identified as risks. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of the risks, including dependencies and mitigation for each identified risk.

viii. Subcontractor Management—the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s procedures for managing subcontractors, vendors, suppliers and small business subcontractors, including any information systems or processes to ensure subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, and small business meets the requirements of the Statement of Work. The Government will review the rationale provided by the Offeror for the selection of the subcontractors and how the selection of these subcontractors will contribute to successful contract performance.

ix. Material Planning and Procurement—the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management information systems for acquisition of materials, material control, and monitoring delivery status of materials previously ordered. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s explanation of the automated qualities of its management information systems, including its discussion of the notification of problems, delays in material ordering/deliveries and how those problems will be handled once they are identified by the system.

2. Criterion 2—Key Personnel—the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Key Personnel resumes in order to determine the Key Personnel’s availability, capability based on current experience, technical/managerial background, and longevity in similar type of complex work.

3. Criterion 3—Program Schedule--the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine if the Offeror has (1) provided a detailed, sound, and comprehensive program schedule for all activities associated with the Statement of Work; and (2) demonstrated that it is capable of meeting the schedule.

4. Criterion 4—Project Status, Control, and Reporting System—the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed project status, control, and reporting system demonstrates an understanding of the NBACC Program Requirements and is completely described

5. Criterion 5—Research Approach—the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed research program demonstrates an understanding of the NBACC Program Requirements and are clearly and completely described.

6. Criterion 6—Intellectual Property Rights—the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s intellectual property rights assertions is favorable to the Government. The extent to which the Offeror proposes specially negotiated license rights that are favorable to the Government.

M.3.2.1.2 Sub-factor B—Technical Approach:

a. The Government will use the following criteria (all of equal importance) to evaluate this sub-factor:

1. Criterion 1—Understanding of Technical Requirements—the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror shows an understanding of the technical requirements and the magnitude of work outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW)

2. Criterion 2—Emergency and Consequence Management—the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s approach to emergency operations and consequence management shows an understanding of the critical nature of the work being accomplished by the NBACC.

M.3.2.1.3 Sub-factor C—Quality Control and Regulatory Compliance:

a. The Government will use the following criteria (all of equal importance) to evaluate this sub-factor:

1. Criterion 1—Quality Control Plan— the Government will evaluate he extent to which the Offeror’s Quality Control (QC) plan provides discernable metrics for the operation of the NBACC’s FFRDC through all contract phases and addresses the authority of the Offeror’s QC Manager.

2. Criterion 2—Quality Assurance (QA) Processes, Procedures, and Management—the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s QA process the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s QA processes and procedures and applicable work instructions that affect quality, including but not limited to: drawing control, accuracy control, and corrective actions. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Quality Management System to determine compliance with the requirements for quality documentation and quality deficiency correction.

3. Criterion 3—Regulatory Compliance Plan—the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s Regulatory Compliance Plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to comply with all laws and regulations governing the establishment and operation of the FFRDC and NBACC facility.

M.3.2.1.4 Sub-factor D—Transition Approach:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements for Transition Approach. For this sub-factor The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Proposal with respect to compliance with the solicitation requirements (notably those identified in Section L).

a. The Government will use the following criteria (all of equal importance) to evaluate this sub-factor:

1. Criterion 1—Transition Management Approach—the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s Proposal and Transition Plan provides for a seamless (with few, if any, disruptions in performance) move to management, scheduling, phasing, cost functions while still meeting milestone dates.

2. Criterion 2—Transition Plan—the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Transition Plan addresses the elements that are listed in the solicitation:

a. The extent to which the Transition Plan describes the Offeror’s approach to either initiating or continuing the program at the NBACC (IMPORTANT NOTE—If the incumbent Contractor, Battelle National Biodefense Institute (BNBI), submits a proposal, it is required by this solicitation to submit a plan that shows how it would continue operations as it transitions from the original NBACC contract to the new contract).

b. The extent that the Offeror’s Phase-In Plan describes the Offeror’s approach to either initiating/or continuing (see note in Item #2 above regarding conditions for the continuation of the program) this program and provide a detailed Plan of Action for actions that will be required to begin performing in accordance with the requirements of this solicitation, including obtaining facility access.

c. The extent that the Offeror’s Plan identifies the major challenges with regard to the start-up or the continuation of the program and provides an approach to mitigate technical/schedule/performance/cost risks.

d. The extent that the Offeror’s Transition Plan provides a detailed discussion of how the Offeror would work to develop work instructions, procedures, planning documents that is needed to either begin or continue the program. The Offeror shall also submit, as part of its Phase-In Plan, a detailed time phased manning plan that indicates staffing by site and function during transition.

e. The extent to which the Offeror’s Transition Plan addresses how the Offeror will assume responsibility for Government-Furnished Property/Materials/Equipment located at NBACC.

M.3.2.2 Past Performance:

The Government will evaluate the Offerors, and (if applicable) its principal and critical subcontractors’ and Joint Venture (JV) team members’ probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Government’s past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s (and its associated principal and critical subcontractors’ and team members) demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products or services that meet the contract’s requirements. For example, in a case where an Offeror proposes to subcontract a significant portion of the work to major subcontractor(s), the past performance rating assigned by the Government will take into consideration past performance information regarding both the Offeror and the subcontractors in rough proportion to either the amount of effort being expended by each and/or the type of effort being expended. That is to say, subcontractors with highly rated past performance may help to raise the rating assigned by the Government to an Offeror proposing to perform only a limited amount of effort, while subcontractors with past performance less highly rated than the Offeror may serve to lower the rating assigned by the Government to an Offeror proposing to perform only a limited amount of effort. One evaluation rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s (and associated principal and critical subcontractors’ and team members’) recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contractual requirements.

IMPORTANT NOTE—the assessment of Offeror’s past performance is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination under FAR Part 9.1 There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the Offeror and (if applicable) the Offeror’s principal and critical subcontractors and JV team members’ past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror and the Offeror’s principal and critical subcontractors’ and JV team members is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an Offeror and (if applicable) the Offeror’s principal and critical subcontractors and JV team members’ contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. In assessing the relevance of the data, the Government will give consideration to past performance on contracts performed or currently being performed over the last 5 years that required the same or similar work in both type and complexity as the work required by this solicitation. Completed contracts and completed deliveries may be deemed more relevant than open contracts without completed deliveries. The currency and relevance of the information and general trends in contract performance will be considered. More recent contracts will be considered more relevant.

With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance evaluation rating than past performance of lesser relevance.

The descending order of relevant past performance is:

· Any contract/project of at least similar size in terms of dollar value and complexity in terms of work scope; and

· Management and Operations of a major Research Laboratory Facility

Regarding the foregoing types of contract/work, some past performance may be deemed more relevant than other types. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government shall make the determination as to the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance.

Offerors are advised that in the evaluation of past performance, the Government may, at its sole discretion, consider information from sources outside of the Offeror’s proposal. For example, the Government may consider information based on its own experience with the Offeror and/or may contact the parties for whom the Offeror performed contracts and consider their response when evaluating the Offeror’s proposal. The Government intends to review Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings on relevant contracts and may also consider Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) ratings, regulatory agency databases, past performance questionnaires, information submitted by each Offeror with its proposal, and other existing past performance information from other Government sources or non-Government sources.

The Government will determine which past performance data is most relevant. Past performance information obtained independently of the Offeror’s proposal may be more relevant than past performance information submitted by the Offeror. The Offeror is reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance source data, including the return of questionnaires, rests with the Offeror itself. General trends in an Offeror’s performance may also be considered.

The Government reserves the right to contact references provided by the Offeror, and otherwise verify statements and representations made in the Offeror’s proposal but reserves the right not to contact all references. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305. In such cases, the Government will assign a Neutral rating.

When proposals are received from Contractor entities (e.g., teams, joint ventures) specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member.

M.3.2.3 Small Business Participation Factor:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements for this factor. For this factor, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Subcontracting Portion of the Technical Proposal with respect to compliance with the solicitation requirements (notably those identified in Section L). In its review, the Government will also consider the following items:

· The extent to which the Offeror details the performance levels in subcontracting under efforts of similar size and complexity. This consideration will take into account, but is not limited to, meeting small business plan goals, contracted Small Business (SB) dollars and % of workload.

· The extent to which the use of small, disadvantaged, women-owned, and under-utilized businesses in the NBACC operation are specifically identified, the extent of commitment to use Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) concerns, the complexity and variety of the work SDB concerns are to perform, the realism of the proposal, the past performance of offerors in complying with subcontracting plan goals for SDB concerns and monetary targets for SDB participation and the extent of participation in terms of value of the total acquisition.

The Government will review the Offeror’s description of the procedures used and the associated success in past subcontracting under contracts of similar size and complexity. Also the Government will review the Offeror’s outline of any unique procedures, if any for managing subcontracts. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s narrative and scope addressing any past teaming arrangements, advisory agreements, and subcontracting agreements.

In addition, the Government will review, if the Offeror is a Large Business, the copies of the final or most recent Standard Form (SF) 294s/Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) for the three most relevant government contracts provided in the Past Performance section of their proposal. The Government will review, if the Offeror is a Small Business concern, the required information in a format substantially the same as the ISR that will be provided by the SB. If an Offeror is a participant of the Department of Defense’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Test Program, the Government will review the Offeror’s submitted copies of the Defense Contract Management Agency’s most recent “Review of Contractor’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Program” (DCMA Form 640), and three final or most recent SF 295s/Summary Subcontracting Reports (SSRs) and will evaluate the Offeror’s explanation as to how the results shown in these documents demonstrate the realism of their proposed Small Business Utilization Strategy.

As identified in Section L of this solicitation, it is the intent of the Government to encourage the use of small business concerns, including the following, whenever practicable:

· Small business concerns,

· Veteran-owned small business concerns,

· Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns,

· HUB-Zone small business concerns,

· Small disadvantaged business concerns,

· Women-owned small business concerns, and

· Historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions.

Therefore, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of the extent to which it has identified and committed to provide for participation by the above listed small business concerns for the performance of this effort. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach for enhancing the above listed small business concerns technical capabilities.

IMPORTANT NOTE--this section of the Technical Proposal addressing the extent of the above listed small business concerns performance shall be separate from subcontracting plans to be submitted by large businesses in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9 titled “Small Business Subcontracting Plan,” but must be consistent with the goals included therein.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s SB utilization strategy for this solicitation, including the following elements:

1. The Offeror’s description of its approach to identifying SB Concerns;

2. The Offeror’s description of the extent of participation of SB Concerns on this contract, including a detailed description of the supplies and services for each SB Concern subcategory, and the complexity and variety of the work SB Concerns are to perform. The Government will evaluate all documentation regarding enforceable commitments made by the Offeror to utilize each SB Concern.

3. The Offeror’s identification of what processes have been implemented to correct past inabilities to meet proposed goals, and any validated improvements.

4. The Offeror’s submission of its SB goals, expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract value and percentages of total subcontract value for SB Concerns and each subcategory of SB, using the format provided below and provided electronically in Attachment L-5 (Table T-1 Small Business Goals). The Government will evaluate Table T-1 for the Prime and for each Principal Subcontractor (Tier-One Subcontractor).

5. The Offeror’s description of the specific efforts and new, contract-specific initiatives to ensure the resulting contract meets or exceeds the proposed goals. These efforts shall include, but are not limited to: sponsoring program specific outreach events and industry conferences, establishing Mentor-Protégé relationships and market research activities to locate small business concerns; and

6. The Offeror’s Demonstration (Large Businesses Only) that it’s SB Utilization Strategy is Consistent with its SB Subcontracting Plan. If the Offeror is a participant in the DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Test Program specified in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 219.7, or if the Offeror submits a Commercial Subcontracting Plan for this proposal, then the Offeror shall describe how SB participation on this contract will contribute to its Comprehensive or Commercial Subcontracting Plan goals.

M.3.2.4 Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Approach:

For this section, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 34.2, the Government will review the written documentation submitted by the Offeror that shows that the Cognizant Federal Agency has officially determined that it’s proposed EVMS complies with the EVMS guidelines in ANSI/EIA Standard 748 (current version at the time of this solicitation).

However, If the Offeror, in its proposal, proposes to use a system that has not been determined to be in compliance with the requirements of ANSI/EIA Standard 748, the Government shall review/evaluate the comprehensive plan for compliance with EVMS guidelines submitted by the Offeror as part of its Contract Administration Volume of the proposal. The Government will review the plan to ensure that the plan completely addresses all the elements identified below:

a. The Offeror’s Plan clearly describes the EVMS that the Offeror plans to use in the performance of the contract;

b. The Offeror’s Plan clearly distinguishes between the Offeror’s existing management system and modifications that are proposed to meet the guidelines;

c. The Offeror’s Plan clearly describes the Offeror’s management system and its application in terms of EVMS guidelines;

d. The Offeror’s Plan clearly describes the proposed procedure for administration of the guidelines, as applied to subcontractors;

e. The Offeror’s Plan clearly provides documentation describing the process and results of any third party or self-evaluation of the system compliance with the EVMS guidelines;

f. The Offeror’s Plan provide milestones that indicate when the Offeror anticipates that the EVM system will be compliant with ANSI/EIA Standard 748 guidelines; and

g. The Offeror’s Plan clearly identifies the principal subcontractors or major subcontracted effort if major subcontractors have not been selected subject to the guidelines. The Government and the Prime Contractor agree to subcontractors selected for the application of the EVMS guidelines.

As individual factors, the relative importance of each factor is provided (in descending order of importance) below:

· Factor 1--Management and Technical Approach.

· Sub-factor A—Management Approach

· Sub-factor B—Technical Approach

· Sub-factor C—Quality Control and Regulatory Compliance

· Sub-factor D—Transition Approach

· Factor 2—Past Performance.

· Factor 3—Small Business Participation.

· Factor 4—Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Approach

· Factor 5—Cost/Price

Factors 1-5 are listed in descending order of importance, with Factor 1 being the most important factor. Within Factor 1, Sub-factors A-D are equal in importance.

Factors 1-4, when combined are more important than Cost/Price. However, the importance of Cost/Price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in overall technical merit of competing proposals, under the non-cost/price factors. A proposal need not include all of the attributes of the rating definitions defined below in order to be eligible for the rating adjectives specified.

M.4.2 Evaluation Ratings/Definitions:

The Government will evaluate the non-cost factors and sub-factors for strengths and weaknesses, deficiencies, and risk. The information being sought by the Department of Homeland Security for each factor and sub-factor is detailed in Section L of this solicitation. Adjectival ratings will be assigned for each non-cost factor as described in this Section M. Adjectival rating for non-cost factors are reflective of how well the proposal meets the solicitation requirements as well as the degree of risk or the measure of the potential impact of a positive or negative aspect of the Offeror’s proposal on the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Risks can be associated with an Offeror’s proposed approach in meeting Government requirements and with the Offeror’s likelihood of success in meeting those requirements.

M.4.2.1 Technical and Management Approach Ratings:

The following relevancy ratings will be used to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror and associated principal subcontractors) is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection:

As discussed in Section L of this solicitation, relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of the similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

M.4.2.2.2 Past Performance Evaluation Rating:

The following adjectival ratings and criteria shall be used only when assessing past performance to determine how well the Contractor performed on the contracts:

For the Past Performance factor, the Past Performance rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s relevant past performance and systematic improvement.

M.4.2.3 Small Business Participation Factor Ratings:

The Government will evaluate the Small Business Participation Factor as either Acceptable or Unacceptable using the definitions provided in the table below.

M.4.2.4 Earned Value Management Approach Ratings:

The Government will evaluate the Earned Value Management Approach Factor as Acceptable, or Unacceptable using the definitions provided in the Table below.

a. The Government shall conduct a cost realism analysis of each proposal to ascertain the cost risk associated with the Offerors’ understanding of the Statement of Work requirements and to determine the most probable cost of performance for each Offeror. The evaluation will focus on the realism of each Offeror’s proposed costs, including that of the prime Offeror and proposed subcontractors/team members, for its ability to support contract requirements with sufficiently qualified personal and the application of realistic costs. The cost realism analysis shall include a review of the specific elements of proposed costs to determine whether the estimated cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the proposed methods of performance in the Offeror’s technical/management proposal.

b. The procedures at FAR 15.404-1(c) and (d) will be utilized in the cost realism analysis of prime Offeror and major subcontractor/team member estimated base labor cost rates and indirect cost rates applicable to labor, travel, and other direct costs. The proposed rates, factors, and expenses shall be examined to substantiate utilization of consistent forward pricing procedures/rates, if applicable, or rates and factors ordinarily utilized by the offeror in proposals if no negotiated or recommended forwarding pricing rates exists. The examination may include DCAA audit/review, DCMA review, internal analysis of Offerors’ current and/or historical cost data related to direct and indirect expenses, Offerors’ projected expenses and expense pools, or any other means determined appropriate by the Government. Prime offeror and major subcontractor/team member proposed cost rates and cost factors will be adjusted to reflect any increases or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. It is anticipated that the analysis of non-major subcontractor/team member cost proposals will be limited to a review of major cost elements to determine whether they are realistic and reasonable utilizing one or more of the price analysis techniques specified at FAR 15.404-1(b). However, the Government reserves the right to employ the detailed cost analysis procedures of FAR 15.404-1(c) and (d) in the evaluation of non-major subcontractor/team member cost proposals if deemed appropriate by the Contracting Officer.

c. Realism and/or reasonableness concerns for which adjustments cannot be adequately quantified, or cost structures considered too low, too high, or unbalanced to support anticipated task order requirements with sufficiently qualified personnel may be determined to represent increased proposal risk.

d. The Offeror’s cost proposal will further be evaluated to determine whether the the overall price the Government expects to pay is fair and reasonableness pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

IMPORTANT NOTE 1—as instructed in Section L of this solicitation, the Offeror shall propose a Base fee (for the Cost-Plus-Award-Fee line items) shall NOT exceed three percent (3%). Failure to comply with this assumption may result in the determination that the cost proposal is non-responsive to the solicitation and may be grounds for the rejection of the proposal.

IMPORTANT NOTE 2—as instructed in Section L of this solicitation, Offerors shall propose a fee NOT-TO-EXCEED nine percent (9%) inclusive of the base and award fee of the proposed Line Item cost. The Government will NOT permit any “profit-on-profit” or “fee-on-fee” on any subcontract. The only exception to this requirement is a fixed price subcontract awarded on the basis of adequate price competition as defined in FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) and for which certified cost and pricing data were not required.

M.4.3.2. Evaluation of Data:

Data Contract Line Items (Applicable to CLINs 0005, 1004, 1104, 2004, 3004, 4004, 5004, 6004, 7004, 8004, and 9002) are not separately priced and will not be evaluated separately for cost reasonableness and cost realism.

M.4.3.3 Evaluation of Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Line Items for NBACC Work-For-Others (WFO) Program:

The NBACC WFO Line Items (Applicable to CLINS 0006, 1005, 1105, 2005, 3005, 4005, 5005, 6005, 7005, and 8005) are IDIQ type and the Government, in Section L to this solicitation, provided the maximum ordering amounts. For the purposes of evaluating the “Projected Cost of the Government,” the Government will use the maximum ordering amounts that are identified in the table below:

M.4.3.4 Evaluation of Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Line Items for NBACC Analytic Tasks Program:

NBACC Analytic Tasks Line Items (Applicable to CLINs 0007, 1006, 1106, 2006, 3006, 4006, 5006, 6006, 7006, and 8006) are IDIQ type and the Government, in Section L to this solicitation, provided the maximum ordering amounts. For the purposes of evaluating the “Projected Cost of the Government,” the Government will use the maximum ordering amounts identified in the table below:

M.4.3.5 Adjustment for Use of Government Property:

Consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation 45.202, the Government will adjust any offer by applying, for evaluation purposes only, a rental equivalent evaluation factor to eliminate any competitive advantage accruing to a Contractor possessing and proposing to use Government production and research property. A rental equivalent evaluation factor will be applied to an Offeror’s proposed cost/price. Offerors are required to submit with their offers, when seeking to rely on the use of Government production and research and property, the following:

1. A list or description of all Government property that the Offeror or its subcontractors propose to use on a rent-free basis. The list shall identify the accountable contract under which the property is held and the authorization for its use (from the Contracting Officer having cognizance of the property);

2. The dates during which the property will be available for use (including the first, last, and all intervening months) and, for any property that will be used concurrently in performing two or more contracts, the amounts of the respective uses in sufficient detail to support pro-rating the rent;

3. The amount of rent that would otherwise be charged in accordance with FAR 52.245-9, Use and Charges. The Government reserves the right to arrive at and use a different rental equivalent factor than that which an Offeror is required to submit. Be advised, the Contractor shall be responsible for all costs related to making the property available for use, such as payment of all transportation, installation, or rehabilitation costs.

M.4.3.6 HUB Zone Small Business Concern Evaluation Preference:

If a proposal is received from a HUB Zone small business concern, which does not waive the evaluation preference, then the evaluation preference listed in FAR Clause 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUB Zone Small Business Concerns, will be applied. The Government will apply the evaluation preference to the “Government’s Total Projected Cost to the Government” amount for each Offeror.

M.4.3.7 Company Compensation Plan:

In accordance with the applicable guidance identified in this solicitation, the Government will review the Offeror’s Compensation Plan to ensure that the said plan is in compliance with the applicable regulations and guidance contained within the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) and the specific requirements contained within this solicitation. Should a principal subcontractor submit a plan, as required by the regulations, the Government will review that plan to ensure that it is also in compliance with the applicable regulations.

M.4.4 Evaluation of the Contract Administration Volume:

As part of its overall evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal, the Government will perform a review of the Contract Administration Volume.