Draft Instructions and Evaluation Factors - Perishables.pdf

52.212-1 ADDENDUM

1. ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(JUN 2008)

Paragraph (b) entitled “Submission of Offers” is deleted in its entirety and replaced with paragraph 2, “Proposal Preparation Instructions”, below.

Paragraph (c) entitled “Period for acceptance of offers” is tailored to read: “The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.”

Paragraph (e) entitled “Multiple Offers” is tailored to read: “The government will not consider multiple offers presenting alternate terms and conditions for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation.”

Paragraph (g) entitled “Contract award (not applicable to Invitation for Bids).” is tailored to read: “The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer 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. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.”

Paragraph (h) entitled, “Multiple awards” is tailored to read: “The Government intends to award one Indefinite-Delivery, Requirements contract as a result of this solicitation. Unless otherwise provided in the Schedule, offers may not be submitted for quantities less than those specified. The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit prices offered, unless the offeror specifies otherwise in the offer.”

USTRANSCOM/TCAQ Points of Contact:

a. The USTRANSCOM Contracting Office is the point of contact for this acquisition.

b. Address any questions or concerns to either of the individuals identified below.

c. Formal communications, such as requests for clarification, questions, and/or written information concerning this solicitation should be submitted in writing (email is the preferred method).

The points of contact for this acquisition are:

USTRANSCOM/TCAQ-C

ATTN: Jacquelyn Stepka or Jason Logsdon 508 Scott Drive Scott AFB, IL 62225-5357 Or Tele-fax number (618)220-7909 Or E-Mail jacquelyn.stepka@ustranscom.mil or jason.logsdon@ustranscom.mil

d. Written questions will be answered in writing and provided to all offerors via FedBizOpps.

However, due to the time required to research a question and provide an answer, questions received less than 10 calendar days prior to the due date of offers specified in this solicitation may not be answered.

e. Formal communications should be submitted in the following format:

Reference: Section ___, Page_____, Paragraph____ Question:______________________________________ mailto:andrew.glose@ustranscom.mil� mailto:gregory.hunt@ustranscom.mil�

2. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

(a) GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. When submitting a proposal, offerors must understand it is their responsibility to ensure they meet all requirements of the Request For Proposal (RFP), not just those stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Any exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified. This means that not all of the requirements identified in the solicitation will be evaluated as evaluation factors or subfactors; however the offeror’s entire proposal will be evaluated to ensure that all of the terms and conditions are met.

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

The offeror’s proposal shall conform to the following conditions:

(1) To be eligible to receive a contract award and subsequent orders pursuant to this solicitation, offerors are required to be a Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) carrier and maintain their CRAF status for the duration of the contract.

(2) The proposal due date is DD MMM YY. The offeror shall make a clear statement in the proposal documentation that the proposal is valid for 180 calendar days as specified in FAR 52.212-1, Addendum, section 1, paragraph (c) cited above.

(3) Proposals shall be submitted on plain white paper, 8 ½ x11 paper, Double-sided, 1 inch margins, Times New Roman, 12 point font.

(4) By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation.

(b) ORGANIZATION OF OFFERS. Proposals shall consist of five sections, Part I - Business Proposal;

Part II - Past Performance Information; Part III - Technical Approach; and Part IV- Price Proposal.

Include one hardcopy of each section as well as one CD-ROM disk with an electronic copy of each section. Completed questionnaires as part of the Past Performance section are not required to be submitted as an electronic copy. Electronic files shall be Microsoft Word files with the exception of the price section which shall be submitted in MS excel. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Items (JAN 1999), as included in this RFP.

(c) PART I – Business Proposal: Offerors are required to comply with the following format and content requirements for Part I of their business proposal.

(1) Solicitation/Contract Form. Offerors shall complete the Standard Form (SF) 1449, blocks 12, 17a and 30a, b, and c. Block 17a should contain the CAGE code. Signature by the offeror on the SF 1449 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept, and acknowledgement by the offeror that they accede to the contract terms and conditions and PWS technical requirements.

(2) Block 17b. Check this block if your remittance address is different, identify the remittance address in your proposal, and ensure this address is in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database.

(3) Acknowledgement of Solicitation Amendments (if any): Return one signed copy of each amendment.

(4) For the Prime and any principal subcontractors provide the Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations. Provide company/division’s street address;

CAGE code; DUNS code; and size of business (large or small).

(5) Letter signed by a Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) representative identifying individuals who are authorized to negotiate and sign documents on the behalf of the CRAF carrier.

(6) Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA). The ORCA can be found at http://orca.bpn.gov or submit written representations and certifications IAW FAR 52.212-3 (Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items (OCT 2010).

(7) Contractors must comply with FAR 52.204-7 (APR 2008) Central Contractor Registration.

(8) Statement acknowledging the requirement to maintain CRAF status for the duration of the contract.

(9) Documentation establishing any proposed Teaming Agreement(s) (if applicable).

(d) PART II – Past Performance Information

(1) Offerors shall describe recent and relevant past performance for international cold-chain logistics and transportation service for corporate contracts and/or Government contracts of similar size and complexity. Offerors shall clearly identify teaming partners/major subcontractors and submit recent and relevant past performance information on those teaming partners/major subcontractors who will perform a significant portion of the proposed effort.

The offeror shall submit a summary page describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor or teaming partner.

(2) The offeror shall submit not more than three contracts and/or customers, public or private, for the prime and not more than three contracts for the proposed principal subcontractor. The offeror should provide the Company or Agency name, Point of Contact, Phone Number, and Email for each reference listed. Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past three years from date of issuance of this solicitation. The Government may contact those agencies and individuals to verify information and/or obtain additional information.

(3) Subcontractor consent (if applicable). Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent.

With your proposal response, provide a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

(4) Past Performance Questionnaires. The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of the offeror’s past performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The Government reserves the right to use information submitted by the offeror and other sources, http://orca.bpn.gov/� such as other Government offices, and commercial sources to assess performance. The offeror shall send out the Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 3) to each offeror’s references identified. The responsibility to send out the Past Performance Questionnaires rest solely with the offeror; whereas, it shall not be delegated to any other entity. The Transmittal Letter shall be used by the offeror in send out the Past Performance Questionnaires. Once the questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. The Past Performance Questionnaires shall be sent directly back to the Government. If more than one questionnaire is received on any of the three contract examples, only the first one received will be accepted. The evaluation of past performance information will take into account the past performance information regarding key subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

(e) PART III – Technical Proposal

The Technical Proposal shall be specific and complete. Responses will be evaluated against the Technical Capability subfactors defined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation— Commercial Items (JAN 1999), included in this RFP. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology used for accomplishing or satisfying these subfactors.

(1) Subfactor 1: Technical Plan for Cold-Chain Supply Solution. For this subfactor, offerors are required to comply with the following format and content requirements.

FORMAT: Not to exceed 10 double-sided pages, Times New Roman, 12 point font.

Offeror shall describe their technical approach for meeting the full range of contract requirements.

A. Offeror shall provide detailed plan on how cold-chain supply chain will be maintained during receiving and over-packing B. Offeror shall describe how shipments will be packaged and/or prepared for transit. What packing materials/methods will be used? According to this packing methodology, how long is shipment expected to maintain temperature integrity before requiring additional cold-chain maintenance procedures (i.e. – repacking, re-icing, etc.)? Offeror should highlight if this methodology has been used previously.

C. Offeror shall identify their overall understanding and methodology for providing end-to-end cold-chain logistics. How is cold-chain maintained during delays? During customs clearance procedures? How is cold-chain maintained after arrival to host nation and before delivery to end customer?

D. Offeror shall explain their experience with customs processing procedures for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (FF&V), and other perishables, in Guam, Japan, and South Korea.

Offeror should highlight any unique procedures that they have established which provide a benefit to the Government.

E. Offeror shall detail what quality control methods are used to ensure on-time performance and cold-chain integrity.

F. Offeror shall identify and address any risks that are considered to have the potential for disruption of service, poor performance, or increased cost. Offeror shall identify risk mitigating strategies to eliminate or reduce the risks.

G. Offeror shall identify if their proposed process as described is used to provide service to previous or current customers or if the proposed process is new or unique.

(2) Subfactor 2: Technical Plan for Emergency, Short-Notice Requirements. For this subfactor, offerors are required to comply with the following format and content requirements.

FORMAT: Not to exceed 10 double-sided pages, Times New Roman, 12 point font.

Some requirements under this contract shall require short-notice service of large volume shipments. These requirements cannot be anticipated with any certainty. The Government will strive to provide as much advance notice as possible, but the nature of military operations and real world contingencies does not always allow ample notification. For this technical subfactor consider the following scenario:

Scenario ~ Mass shipment of approximately 300,000 lbs containing frozen, chilled, and dry product needs to be delivered to Guam.

A. Offeror shall provide sound plan detailing how emergency shipment will be accomplished and given priority so that shipment arrives within soonest possible timeframe while also maintaining service for regularly scheduled shipments.

B. Offeror shall demonstrate that they have adequate resources, personnel, and subcontractor agreements to consistently provide service for short-notice emergency shipments.

(3) Subfactor 3: Small Business Subcontracting Effort. Offerors shall submit their

Subcontracting Plan for Small Business concerns as required by FAR 52.219-9, incorporated by reference in FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Items (OCT 2010). A Subcontracting Plan is required as part of initial proposal submission form all offerors other than small business concerns. The Government will review each plan to assure it is consistent with the FAR 52.219-9, FAR Part 19, and the supplements thereto. Additionally, offerors classified as large businesses should identify the business size classification of their principal subcontractor and identify an estimated percentage of work that will be attributable to the principal subcontractor. If the offeror is classified as a small business, they must indicate the percentage of contract costs incurred for personnel attributable to their firm. If less than 50%, the offeror shall identify the business size classification of their principal subcontractor.

(4) Proposals that merely paraphrase the requirements of the Government’s specifications/Performance Work Statement, or use such phrases as “will comply” or “standard techniques will be employed” will be considered unacceptable and will not be considered further.

(5) By signing the SF Form 1449, the offeror concedes their proposal meets all technical requirements stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

(6) The technical proposal will be incorporated by reference into the subject contract.

(f) PART IV – Pricing Proposal

(a) Insert proposed unit and extended prices in the Schedule of Supplies/Services beginning on page 3 for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). Offerors’ unit rates shall be proposed on a per pound basis rounded to the nearest hundredth decimal position (e.g, $2.50). To be considered for award, offerors must provide unit rates for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) with an estimated quantity. Option periods will not be priced as they will be determined annually based on the Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clause.

(b) Unrealistically low or high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition, either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement, or has made an unrealistic proposal.

ADDENDUM

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) This acquisition will be a competitive best value source selection based on the subjective judgement of the Government. The Government intends to award a single Indefinite-Delivery, Requirements contract to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror that gives USTRANSCOM the greatest confidence that it will meet or exceed the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical approach and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed overall cost/price since the Government is more interested in obtaining superior performance than lowest price. However, the Government will not pay a price premium that it considers to be disproportionate to the benefits associated with the proposed margin of service superiority. Therefore, the Government will award a contract to the offeror considered to be the best value offeror, all factors considered given their relative order of importance specified below. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals submitted and availability of funds. To arrive at a source selection decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the evaluation factors described below.

(b) Evaluation Factors. Past Performance is more important than Technical, and when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

(1) Factor 1 – Past Performance

(2) Factor 2 – Technical Proposal

(i) Sub factor 1 – Cold-Chain Supply Solution Plan

(ii) Sub factor 2 – Emergency, Short-Notice Requirements Plan

(iii) Sub factor 3 – Small Business Subcontracting Effort

(3) Factor 3 – Cost/Price Proposal

(c) FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE. Using past performance questionnaires submitted by the offeror’s POCs and other information independently obtained from Government or commercial sources, the Government will perform a confidence assessment on each offeror. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. Past Performance questionnaires will be evaluated on the basis of recency and relevancy. The Government will first evaluate the recency (within the last 3 years) and then the relevancy as follows:

(1) The Government will perform an independent assessment of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. The following ratings will be used in evaluating the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance. The Government may deem demonstrated performance more relavent on past performance whereby the offeror and principal subcontractor performed service together. The relevancy of each contract reference will be considered in the overall confidence assessment rating for the offeror:

(i) Highly Relevant (HR) – Past performance efforts involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires as related to the technical subfactors and requirements within the PWS.

(ii) Relevant (R) – Past performance efforts involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires as related to the technical subfactors and

(iii) Somewhat Relevant (SR) – Past performance efforts involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires as related to the technical subfactors and

(iv) Not Relevant (NR) – Past performance efforts did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires as related to the technical subfactors and

(2) Past Performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror and principal subcontractor’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contracts and support agreements. One of the following confidence assessment ratings will be assigned to each offeror:

(a) High Confidence - Based on the offeror’s performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(b) Significant Confidence - Based on the offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(c) Satisfactory Confidence - Based on the offeror’s performance record, some doubt exists the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(d) Little Confidence - Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

(e) Neutral/Unknown Confidence - No performance record is identifiable.

(3) Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors (e.g., Freight Forwarders, Agents) that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement will be rated the same (equally as important) as the past performance information for the principal offeror (CRAF carrier). Offerors demonstrating successful partnerships with their proposed principal subcontractor(s) may receive a higher confidence rating than past performance on each partner independent of the other, all else equal. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive an Unknown Confidence meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most recent and most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

(4) In addition to the past performance questionnaires returned by the offeror’s references, past performance information may be obtained through the (1) Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), (2) Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), or (3) other sources known to the Government. The Government reserves the right to review contracts, considered representative of past and ongoing relevant performance, other than those suggested by the offeror.

(5) Where the relevant present and past performance record indicated performance problems, the Government may consider the number and severity of problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken, not just planned or promised action. If the offeror clearly demonstrated management actions employed in overcoming problems and effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified, this may allow the offeror to be rated higher. All offerors shall be given an opportunity to respond to any adverse present and past performance information obtained by the evaluation team for which the offeror did not previously have an opportunity to address.

(d) FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. Each offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated to determine how well an offeror’s proposal meets the minimum performance requirements identified in the solicitation. The adjectival/color code and acceptable/unacceptable ratings are assigned at the subfactor level. The adjectival/color code and risk and acceptable/unacceptable ratings provided below shall be utilized when evaluating the technical factors. Subfactors 1 and 2 are weighted equally important and when combined are significantly more important than Sub factor 3.

(1) Subfactor 1 – Cold-Chain Supply Solution Plan: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical plan to ensure the offeror’s plan details a realistic approach to implementing a cold-chain supply solution that includes all processes between and including receipt and packaging of Government perishables to final delivery to end customers. The offeror’s plan will be rated in accordance with the measure of merit and color code/adjectival ratings shown below and assigned a color/adjectival rating and proposal risk assessment along with any identified strengths and weaknesses.

(a) Measure of Merit. The measure of merit for this factor is met when the offeror meets the government’s minimum standard. This is achieved when the offeror submits a sound plan for accomplishing the requirements identified in the PWS, Para 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

ADJECTIVAL COLOR DEFINITION

Outstanding Purple Proposal appreciably exceeds the Government’s minimum requirements in a way significantly beneficial to the Government, indicating the offeror should be able to successfully perform the prospective contract. The proposal includes at least one significant strength, or multiple strengths that, when considered together, provide a significant benefit to the Government, and no weaknesses or significant weaknesses.

Excellent Blue Proposal exceeds the Government’s minimum requirements in a way beneficial to the Government, indicating the offeror should be able to successfully perform the prospective contract. The proposal includes at least one significant strength and no weaknesses or significant weaknesses.

Acceptable Green Proposal meets the Government’s minimum requirements and may exceed some, without any associated benefit to the Government, indicating the offeror should be able to successfully perform the prospective contract. The proposal may include weaknesses, but no significant weaknesses.

Marginal Yellow Proposal does not clearly meet the Government’s minimum requirements. The proposal includes apparent deficiencies, indicating that the offeror may not be able to successfully perform the prospective contract. A proposal with a Marginal rating is not awardable.

Unacceptable Red Proposal fails to meet the Government’s minimum requirements and includes deficiencies, indicating that the offeror will not be able to successfully perform the required contract, or the proposal includes significant weaknesses indicating that the offeror will most likely not be able to successfully perform the required contract. A proposal with an Unacceptable rating is not awardable.

(b) Proposal risk includes an assessment of the risks associated with a contractor’s proposed approach for accomplishing the requirements, weaknesses in the proposed approach, and weaknesses in the proposal itself. Proposal risk is assessed against the Technical Proposal and will be assigned on of the following ratings below:

Low – Offeror’s proposed approach has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate - Offeror’s proposed approach can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High - Offeror’s proposed approach is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Extraordinary contractor emphasis and rigorous government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

Unacceptable - The existence of a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses in the offeror’s proposed approach that is very likely to cause unmitigated disruption of schedule, drastically increased costs or severely degraded performance.

(2) Subfactor 2 – Emergency Shipment, Short-Notice Requirements Plan: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical plan to ensure the offeror’s plan details a realistic approach to providing high priority, short-notice shipments. The offeror’s plan will be rated in accordance with the measure of merit and acceptable or unacceptable ratings shown below.

(a) Measure of Merit: The measure of merit for this factor is met when the offeror meets the government’s minimum standard. This is achieved when the offeror submits a sound plan for accomplishing the requirements identified in the PWS, Para 2.4. An unacceptable rating for this subfactor will render the offeror ineligible for award.

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal meets the Government’s minimum requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to meet the Government’s minimum requirements.

(3) Subfactor 3 – Small Business Subcontracting Effort: Color/adjectival ratings will be used for rating this factor. Each offeror’s proposal will be given a color/adjectival rating using the measures of merit shown below. The color/adjectival rating depict how well the offeror’s proposal meets the measures of merit and solicitation requirements. The small business subcontracting plan shall be evaluated using the following color ratings:

ADJECTIVAL COLOR DEFINITION

Excellent Blue Offeror submitted an acceptable small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 and FAR Part 19. Further, the offeror demonstrated a subcontracting arrangement with a small business to provide a meaningful portion of service for this requirement.

Acceptable Green Offeror demonstrated an acceptable small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-9 and FAR Part 19.

The offeror did not demonstrate a subcontracting agreement with a small business to complete a meaningful portion of service for this requirement.

Marginal Yellow Offeror’s small business contracting plan may contain some weaknesses that may be corrected.

Unacceptable Red Offeror failed to provide an acceptable small business subcontracting plan and weaknesses cannot be corrected.

(a) This factor will be evaluated by an assessment of the likelihood that sufficient small businesses will be given the opportunity to perform under this contract.

(b) Measures of merit for this factor are met when the offeror:

i. Demonstrates an acceptable small business subcontracting plan in accordance with the requirements of FAR clause 52.219-9 – SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (OCT 2010), if applicable.

ii. Demonstrates small business commitment for the proposed acquisition and identifies such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, in their proposal.

iii. If the prime offeror is a small business, the firm demonstrates that they will perform a substantial portion of the work, or demonstrate that it will subcontract to other small businesses to perform aspects of the requirement.

(4) Any technical capability subfactor determined Unacceptable will render the entire technical proposal as Unacceptable. Upon final determination that a proposal is Unacceptable, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall promptly notify the firm submitting the proposal that it will not be considered for award and shall indicate in general terms the basis for the determination.

(f) FACTOR 4 – PRICE

(1) The Government will conduct a price analysis to determine whether the proposed prices are fair and reasonable and the offeror has a clear understanding of the work. This determination may be accomplished by one or more of the techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

(2) The total evaluated price to be used for evaluation and trade-off purposes will be the summation of the extended prices for all priced, base year CLINs.

(3) Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalance pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs are significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Offers determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(g) Options: The Government will not evaluate option year pricing at the time of award.

(h) An electronic or written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.