Section_M_Track_Changes_1_Aug_17_Amend_2.pdf

M-1. INTRODUCTION

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposal for

Analysis of Mobility Platform (AMP). The Government will compare each Offeror’s proposal elements against the evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. This is a competitive, best value, source selection using a subjective tradeoff process that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 and Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.3.

M-2 BASIS OF AWARD

M-1.2.1. The Government intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract as well as Task Order 1 from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror, whose offer, conforming to the solicitation requirements, will be most advantageous to the Government, based on an integrated assessment of Offeror’s proposed technical capabilities, staffing approach, past performance, small business proposal, and cost/price. The

Government will utilize a source selection to determine the “best value” offer with all factors considered, given their relative order of importance.

M-1.2.2. Each offer will be assessed in accordance with the evaluation factor and subfactor criteria herein, resulting in an integrated assessment to arrive at a best value decision.

M-1.2.3. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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 determined based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors. 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. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation criteria listed in M-2 below.

M-1.2.4. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all depending on the quality of the proposals submitted and subject to the availability of funds. The Contracting Officer may limit the competitive range for purposes of efficiency.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS

M-2.1. The Government will evaluate Offeror’s proposals for General Compliance and the following factors detailed herein:

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Subfactor 1: AMP Modeling and Simulation Capability Development and Sustainment Approach

Subfactor 2: AMP Optimization Capability Development and Sustainment Approach

Subfactor 3: AMP Aerial Refueling Capability Development and Sustainment Approach

Subfactor 4: Phase-In Plan Approach

FACTOR 2: STAFFING APPROACH

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS COMMITMENT/PARTICIPATION PLAN

FACTOR 5: COST/PRICE

M-2.1.1. Relative Order of Importance of Factors. Small Business Commitment/Participation Plan will be evaluated to determine Acceptable/Unacceptable. Non-price evaluation factors in descending order of importance are Technical Capability, Staffing Approach, and Past Performance. Technical subfactors will be evaluated at the subfactor level. All techical subfactors are considered equal in importance. Cost/Price will be evaluated, but not rated. When all factors are combined, the non-price factors are considered approximately equal to price.

M-2.1.2. The table below provides an overview of the required Volumes.

Table M-1. Evaluation Categories and Factors

VOLUME

NUMBER

CATEGORY FACTOR

Volume I General Compliance

Volume II Technical Capability Factor 1

AMP Modeling and Simulation Capability Development and

Sustainment Approach

Subfactor 1

AMP Optimization Capability Development and Sustainment

Approach

Subfactor 2

AMP Aerial Refueling Capability Development and Sustainment

Approach

Subfactor 3

Phase-In Plan Approach Subfactor 4

Volume III Staffing Approach Factor 2

Volume IV Past Performance Factor 3

Volume V Small Business Commitment/Participation Plan Factor 4

Volume VI Cost/Price Factor 5

M-2.2 GENERAL COMPLIANCE

Information submitted for General Compliance will be evaluated as part of the Offeror’s responsibility determination to determine if the Offeror is eligible for award.

M-2.2-1. Offeror Profile. The Offeror provides: Company Name, Company Background, Headquarters Address, Address of Primary Place of Work, CAGE Code, DUNS Number, Authorized Negotiator, Authorized Signatory, Contracting POC, Technical POC, and Contractor Teaming Arrangement.

M-2-2-1. Facility Clearance. The Offeror provides proof of a valid Secret Facility Clearance as accredited by the

Defense Security Services (DSS), at time of proposal submission. The Offeror completes box 6 and 7 of the DD

Form 254 (Attachment 4). The Government is aware that Blocks 6a, 6b, 6c, 7a, 7b, and 7c of Attachment 3 currently contain “Not applicable to Solicitations” and “N/A”. Offeror shall provide the detailed information for

Blocks 6 and 7 at proposal submittal inserted below the language already within the blocks. Prior to award a

Revised DD254 will be issued.

M-2.2.2. Contract Forms and Certifications. The Offeror validates eligibility for a Government contract based on the Offeror’s responses to the representations, certifications, all contract forms, acknowledgement of amendment(s) and other statements required by the RFP. All contract forms, representations and certifications are completed as required.

M-2.2.3. Adequate Accounting Systems. The Offeror provides valid documentation from DCMA, DCAA, or other

Federal Audit Agency that they have an adequate accounting system for operating Government cost type contracts to be considered for award.

M-2.2.4. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/Mitigation Plan. The Government will review the Offeror’s

OCI Mitigation Plan to determine if any actual or perceived OCI exists as required by FAR 9.5.

M-2.2.5. Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan applies to Large

Businesses only. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Attachment 6 Template) will shall be submitted at time of proposal submission and reviewed for acceptability.and evaluated as part of the Offeror’s responsibility determination and not It will not be part of the evaluationed as part of Volume V - Small Business

Commitment/Participation Plan or as a Small Business subfactor. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Small

Business Subcontracting Plan for compliance with the requirements of 52.219-9, Alt II (Deviation 2016-O0009)

(AUG 2016), Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Failure to submit and negotiate an acceptable subcontracting plan shall make the Offeror ineligible for contract award. Additionally, the Government will assess the proposed subcontracting plan in accordance with the following criteria:

(a) Proposal meets or exceeds the minimum small business goal as set forth in Section L. the content requirements identified in 52.219-9, Alt II (Deviation 2016-O0009 (Aug 2016) to be included in the

Subcontracting Plan.

(b) Proposal demonstrates a solid process for tracking and reporting subcontracted dollars in Electronic

Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) and insuring selection of appropriate NAICS code for subcontracting efforts.

(c) Proposal demonstrates ability to maintain or expand small business utilization throughout the life of the AMP ID/IQ efforts.

The Government will review the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan and determine the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan to be Acceptable or Unacceptable in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9, Alt II (Deviation

2016-O0009) (Aug 2016) 19.7.

Table M-2. Small Business Subcontracting Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable Definitions

RATINGS DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal meets the Government’s minimum requirements.

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

M-2.2.6. Technical Data Package. In accordance with Memorandum of Agreement/Non-Disclosure Agreement, Technical Data Package CD shall be returned to USTRANSCOM no later than the proposal submission deadline indicated on the Solicitation, Block 9 of the SF 33.

M-2.3. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

M-2.3.1. Technical Ratings. The four technical subfactors are of equal importance. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The technical ratings evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies may be assigned to the Offeror’s Technical proposal. Offerors will be given color ratings for each of the four subfactors as documented in Table M-3. The Government may assign strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies for each of the four subfactors as identified in Table M-4 below, to the Offeror’s technical subfactor approach.

Table M-3. Technical Capability Color Ratings

Color

Rating

Adjectival

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Table M-4. Technical Capability Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses and Deficiency Definitions

Rating Definition

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR

15.001.

Significant

Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

M-2.3.2. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Capability as follows:

(a) Subfactor 1: AMP Modeling and Simulation Capability Development and Sustainment Approach (Task

Order 1, PWS Task Area 4, 5, and 11). Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for the following:

1) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound plan to developing, enhancing, and sustaining AMP

Modeling and Simulation software.

2) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a logical approach to developing and sustaining Modeling and

Simulation capability for the movement of cargo and personnel over the DTS within the construct of the DOD JDDE.

(b) Subfactor 2: AMP Optimization Capability Development and Sustainment Approach (Task Order 1, PWS Task Area 11, paragraph 1.3.11.1). Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the

Offeror’s technical approach for the following:

1) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound plan for developing, enhancing, and sustaining AMP heuristics and mathematical optimization capability software.

2) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a logical approach to developing and sustaining optimization capabilities integrated within the AMP Modeling and Simulation framework.

(c) Subfactor 3: AMP Aerial Refueling Capability Development and Sustainment Approach (Task Order 1, PWS Task Area 11, paragraph 1.3.11.2.1). Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the

Offeror’s technical approach for the following:

1) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound plan for developing, enhancing, and sustaining AMP

Aerial Refueling capability software.

2) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a logical approach to developing and sustaining Aerial

Refueling capabilities with the AMP program.

(d) Subfactor 4: Phase-In Plan Approach (Task Order 1, PWS paragraph 6.1).

1) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound plan for assuming responsibility for this effort immediately upon award to ensure successful transition.

2) The Offeror’s approach describes how Offeror will provide for the receipt of Government Furnished

Equipment (GFE), set-up a secure “Red Room” facility, coordinate with Defense Security Services

(DSS) for “Approval to Operate” (ATO) certification for access to Secure Internet Protocol Network

(SIPRNET), tools and techniques used for software configuration management, version control, and change management.

M-2.4. FACTOR 2 – STAFFING APPROACH

M-2.4.1. Under the Staffing Factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s staffing approach for fulfilling

USTRANSCOM’s requirements. The combined staffing/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining staffing ratings. The staffing ratings evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s staffing solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies may be assigned to the Offerors’ Staffing proposal.

Offerors will be given a color ratings for staffing approach as documented in Table M-5. The Government may assign strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies to the Offeror’s proposal as identified in Table

M-6 below, to the offeror’s staffing approach.

Table M-5. Staffing Approach Color Ratings

Color

Rating

Adjectival

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Table M-6. Staffing Approach Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses and Deficiency Definitions

Rating Definition

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR

15.001.

Significant

Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

M-2.4.2. Staffing Approach Proposal evaluation:

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Staffing Approach as follows.

1) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound and logical staffing approach for fulfilling

USTRANSCOM’s Task Order 1 requirements utilizing Government provided Labor Category

Descriptions (Attachment 7).

2) Offeror’s Staffing approach demonstrates a sound and logical plan to recruit, hire, and retain personnel with the qualifications, skills, certifications, and individual security clearance required to meet the Government’s requirement.

3) Staffing approach specifies roles that will be filled by teaming partner(s), if applicable.

4) Staffing approach identifies the team/organizational structure for Task Order 1.

(b) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Staffing Matrix as follows:

1) The Offeror’s Personnel Matrix identifies the personnel resources given the Offeror’s unique approach for performing all PWS tasks for Task Order 1

2) The Offeror’s Personnel Matrix correlates each labor category by hour to each PWS task and subtask.

3) The Offeror’s Personnel Matrix includes number of annual hours used to represent an FTE.

M-2.5. FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

M-2.5.1. Past Performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation based on recent and relevant past performance efforts.

The Government will begin its evaluation by determining the recency and relevancy of each past performance effort.

Recent past performance means the references are ongoing or were performed within the past three years of proposal due date.

M-2.5.2. As part of the Past Performance submission, each Offeror shall demonstrate experience in:

(1) Performance developing and sustaining applications for modeling and simulating the movement of DOD-related or commercial cargo and personnel (PWS Task Areas 4, 5, and 11).

(2) Performance developing and sustaining applications for optimizing the movement of DOD-related or commercial cargo and personnel annually (PWS Task Area 11, paragraph 1.3.11.1).

(3) Performance developing and sustaining Aerial Refueling modeling and simulation applications (PWS

Task Area 11, paragraph 1.3.11.2.1).

M-2.5.3. The Government will perform an independent assessment of relevancy of the data provided or obtained.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort to the scope and magnitude of effort and complexity this solicitation requires, and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. Relevant past performance means the references have a logical connection to the work described in the performance areas identified in paragraph M-

2.5.2 above. While each past performance area does not need to be reflected in a single reference, the Government will give more consideration to a reference which reflects performance in more than one performance area within a single reference.

M-2.5.4. While the Government will consider past performance information on relevant projects performed for federal, state, and local Governments, as well as in the commercial sector, past performance conducted within the

DOD will receive greater consideration when assigning a past performance confidence assessment rating than those for work performed for organizations other than DOD.

M-2.5.5. Past performance regarding predecessor companies or principal subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement will be weighted the same (equally as important) as the past performance information for the Offeror.

M-2.5.6. In addition to past performance information submitted by the Offeror, past performance information may be obtained through:

(1) Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)

(2) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) tailored to the circumstances for this acquisition

(3) Other sources known to the Government

M-2.5.7. Each contract reference will be assigned a relevancy rating which will be considered in the overall confidence assessment rating for the offeror. For purposes of this acquisition, scope is defined as developing and sustaining: applications for modeling and simulating the movement of DoD-related or commercial cargo and personnel; applications for optimizing the movement of DoD-related or commercial cargo and personnel; and Aerial

Refueling modeling and simulation applications. For purpose of this acquisition, magnitude is defined as performance in the relevant areas valued at approximately $45.5MID/IQ contract maximum.The following ratings in Table M-7 will be used in evaluating the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance.

Table M-7 Relevancy Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

M-2.5.8. After all past performance work efforts have been assigned individual relevancy ratings, the Government will assign a single Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The assigned rating will reflect the Government’s overall confidence in the Offeror’s, principal subcontractor(s) or teaming partner(s) ability to successfully perform this effort considering performance on previous efforts, information identified by each contractor, PPQs, and other information obtained by the Government. The Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based upon all of the information submitted or obtained and determined relevant by the Government, regardless of whether the information is for a prime or subcontractor. Past Performance which cannot be validated by a source other than the

Offeror will not be considered in the Past Performance Confidence Assessment.

M-2.5.9. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, that Offeror will receive an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating of

“Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” which will be considered neither favorably nor unfavorably.

M-2.5.10. One of the performance confidence assessment ratings in Table M-8 will be assigned to each offeror:

Table M-8 Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

ADJECTIVAL

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 fact of past performance.

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.

M-2.6. FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS COMMITMENT/PARTICIPATION PLAN

M-2.6.1. Each Small Business Commitment/Participation Plan will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Offeror must receive a rating of Acceptable in order to be considered for award. Acceptable and Unacceptable are defined in Table M-9.

Table M-9 Small Business Commitment/Participation Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable Definitions

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Small Business Commitment/Participation Plan meets the Government’s minimum requirements.

Unacceptable Small Business Commitment/Participation Plan fails to meet the Government’s minimum requirements.

M-2.6.2. To be rated acceptable, the Offeror’s proposed Small Business Commitment/Participation Plan:

(a) Provides detailed description of services to be performed by each Small Business Concern subcategory proposed.

(b) Provides goals, expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract values and dollars and percentages of total domestic subcontracting values for each category of Small Business.

(c) Includes a description of the Offeror’s proposed efforts to ensure the resulting contract meets or exceeds the minimum identified Small Business subcontracting goals.

(d) For Large Businesses, demonstrates that the proposed Small Business Utilization Strategy is consistent with their proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

(e) For Offerors who are participating in the DOD Comprehensive Subcontracting Test Program, describes how small business participation under this contract will contribute to its overall Comprehensive

Subcontracting plan goals.

M-2.7. FACTOR 5 – COST/PRICE PROPOSAL

M-2.7.1. Completeness. Offeror’s proposal will be reviewed to determine the extent to which the cost/price elements of the offer have been addressed. Proposal will be checked to ensure continuity and traceability of cost/price to the technical effort and between the initial proposal and all revisions thereto, with emphasis on the adequacy of the rationale for any changes. The review will determine the adequacy of the Offeror fulfilling the requirements of the RFP and in response to clarifications and deficiencies identified by the Government.

M-2.7.2. ID/IQ. The Government will conduct a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(2) using various price analysis techniques and procedures in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine whether the proposed ID/IQ labor rates, submitted on Attachment 12, Tab A, are fair, reasonable, and realistic. The Government will utilize, at a minimum, indexes for labor rate comparisons to Offeror’s proposed labor rates in the Geographical area in which the work will be performed to assist in fair, reasonable, and realistic determination. The Government will consider professional certifications requirements and security clearance requirements when making comparisons to indexes and anticipate rates within the upper quadrant of the Indexes based on the Government’s requirement for certifications and security clearance.

M-2.7.3. Task Order 1. The Government will conduct a fair and reasonable determination and cost realism analysis to determine whether level of effort and labor mix reflect clear understanding of requirements and are consistent with the Offeror’s technical approach.

In addition, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for award based upon the proposed Task Order 1 price for the period of performance plus an additional six-month period calculated in accordance with M-2.7.2 TEP and FAR

Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, resulting in a TEP. Pricing for the six-month Extension of Service period will be based on 6/12th of the hours proposed for Task Area 11 for each labor category in the base period at the rate in effect on the last day of the period of performance. For all other task areas the hours proposed for each labor category for the 6 month period of performance (1 April 2018 through 30 September 2018) and the labor rates in effect on the last day of the base period will be used to calculate TEP. Additionally, 6/12 of ODCs and Travel will be used in the TEP calculation. However, the Extension of Services period will not be identified in the resulting contract as an option. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M-2.7.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). FAR Clause 52.217-8 Extension of Services is included in this RFP. TEP will be considered in determining the best value award decision; however, it will not be rated. The TEP for Task

Order 1 will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for award purposes only and will not be incorporated into the contract award. Offeror’s proposed Phase-In Plan price will be excluded from the TEP calculation. The TEP will be computed as the sum of the following elements of Task Order 1:

(a) CPFF Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), excluding Phase-In CLINs (Probable Cost Calculation)

(b) FFP CLIN

(c) Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODC) CLINs

M-2.7.5. Reasonableness Evaluation. The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition for this acquisition. Therefore, the existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of fairness and reasonableness, and no other information, including Data Other Than

Certified Cost or Pricing Data, is expected to be required. However, in the event that adequate price competition is not obtained, the Government may use any of the methods permitted by FAR Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing, including requiring the submission of Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing

Data, as appropriate and as necessary to establish the reasonableness of proposed prices. IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), the

Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices are significantly unbalanced. All proposed labor rates, profit percentage, and cost/price data will be evaluated for reasonableness IAW FAR 15.305 and using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404.

M-2.7.6. Realism Evaluation and Probable Cost. Realism analysis will be conducted to review and evaluate specific elements, including proposed labor rates of each Offeror’s proposed cost/price proposal to determine whether the estimated proposed elements are:

(a) Realistic for the work to be performed

(b) Reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements

For each CPFF/COST CLIN, cost realism analysis will determine the probable cost (PC) of performance for each offeror by adjusting each Offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The PC is an independent

Government estimate that may differ from the Offeror’s proposed cost, and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. Adjustments will be made consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal as described in FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101. In order to calculate the PC, the Government will use the Offeror’s submitted proposal which covers Task Areas 4, 5, and 11. If the Offeror believes their expected approach supports the hours proposed in the Staffing Matrix (Attachment X11) for all other work performed, the Government will accept a five page addendum narrative to Volume VI – Cost/Price that details that approach for work under any

Cost CLIN that has not been identified in the Volume II Technical Approach. The five page addendumnarrative will be utilized in the PC determination only and will not be evaluated as part of Volume II – Technical Approach. If the

Government determines the expected approach supports the proposed hours, the Offeror’s proposed cost will not be adjusted. If an Offeror’s narrative does not support the hours proposed, the Independent Governemnt Cost Estimate

(IGCE) will be used as the basis to determine PC. The most PC shall be used to calculate the TEP and for purposes of evaluation and assist in determining the best value. Note: Offeror’s FFP prices shall not be adjusted as part of the realism analysis.

M-2.7.7. Options. The period of performance for both the ID/IQ and Task Order 1 are for a base period only and do not include Options. TEP will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend

Services. However, the Extension of Services period will not be identified in the resulting contract as an option.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M-2.7.8. Funding Availability. The Government may choose not to award a contract if it is not possible to make an award within the amount of FY18 available for obligation.

M-3 DISCUSSIONS

M-3.1. Discussions. After completion of evaluations, the Government may award a contract without conducting discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, written and/or oral, with Offerors, if determined to be in the Government’s best interest. The proposal evaluations may result in the establishment of a

“competitive range”.

M-3.2. 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 highly rated proposals. Therefore, Offerors should present their very best proposal as their initial proposal. Offerors are strongly advised to thoroughly examine their proposals for accuracy, full documentation, clear explanations and compliance with all requirements of the RFP prior to submission to the

Contracting Officer. The Government reserves the right to award no contract, depending upon the quality of the proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

M-4 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

M-4.1. Final Proposal Revisions. Final proposal revisions may be required in determining the award of the contract(s) resulting from this RFP. However, the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions, in which case final proposal revisions will not be required.

(End of Section M)