ATTACHMENT_2_Section_M_EVALUATION_FACTORS_REV_A.pdf

SECTION M, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

AERO-I SATCOM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

ATTACHMENT 2

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

Tradeoffs will be made only between past performance and price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 15.304 and its addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, 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, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

While the government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 01 April 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals

The government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency. If a deficiency is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. The government also reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from

Revision A http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm the competitive range where the technical proposal does not require a major proposal revision, but the offeror is not among the most highly rated offerors.

1.4. Rejection of Offers

The government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions.

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c).

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. The competitive range determination can be based on factor 1, technical, factor 2, past performance, factor 3, price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the final proposal revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, or a post award debriefing IAW FAR 15.506.

1.6. Discussions

The government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the government to hold discussions, the government will determine if responses to evaluation notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if offerors will be required to include EN responses in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how offerors will submit FPRs. The government also reserves the right to request draft FPRs during discussions. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation

1.7. Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned. The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror’s written proposal.

1.8. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Aircraft Installation and Integration Strategy Subfactor 2: Small Business Participation

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between past performance and price. The order of importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (past performance) is approximately equal to Factor 3 (price).

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology

The government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range. The government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. Past performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the past performance ratings, along with supporting information, and price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The technical evaluation will be based on each offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for

AERO-I SATCOM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

that subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall Technical rating.

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Aircraft Installation and Integration Strategy The government will assess the offeror’s proposed KC-135 Aero-I Replacement Program Aircraft Installation and Integration approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Section L, Instruction To Offerors (ITO). The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a. The proposed approach must ensure the first articles are successfully delivered and the proposed transceiver and antenna approach shall meet the system requirements specifications listed in the SRD paragraph 3 and Appendix A. (SOW 3, SOW 3.5, SOW 4.1, and SOW 4.3)

b. The proposed installation approach must ensure the transceiver and antenna will be successfully installed and will meet schedule requirements. (SOW 3.4, SOW 6 Table 2 and SOW 6.1)

c. The proposed approach shall include a storage and delivery plan to ensure kits are available for installation as required to meet the schedule provided.

(SOW 3.1, SOW 5.3, and SOW 5.5)

d. The proposed Associated Contractor Agreement (ACA) must sufficiently establish bilateral agreements between the offeror and Collins Aerospace.

(SOW 3.5)

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Small Business Participation

The small business subfactor is considered to be acceptable when the offeror’s small business participation plan clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the 8% minimum small business participation requirements. All offerors will be evaluated on their small business participation plan. (FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003)

2.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.1. Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the past performance factor.

2.3.2. Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to Technical Subfactor 1, Aircraft Integration and Installation Strategy, and price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less recent performance. The government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s past performance proposal volume and information obtained

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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

AERO-I SATCOM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

from other sources, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the offeror’s past performance.

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2. Relevancy Assessment

The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the technical subfactors and price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)), as defined in FAR 15.305(2)(iii) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example:

past performance for a subcontractor for program management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform program management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information submitted by offerors along with information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

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

RELEVANT

(R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope, magnitude and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, installing similar SATCOM systems on military or civilian large or heavy aircraft. Large aircraft is defined as aircraft more than 41,000 pounds maximum certified takeoff weight up to 300,000 pounds. Heavy aircraft is defined as aircraft capable of takeoff weights of 300,000 pounds or greater.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

a) Quantity of SATCOM systems installed on aircraft per year

b) Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the technical subfactors.

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed- Price (FFP) and Cost) of previous effort as compared to the KC-135 Aero-I Replacement requirement.

2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment

The government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) (including ratings and supporting narratives), interviews with government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as past performance information which the government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating

AERO-I SATCOM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. The government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.3.3. Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.3.1 above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the past performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant effort. A record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Satisfactory, or Limited Confidence, may be considered more advantageous to the government than a Neutral Confidence rating.

Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

AERO-I SATCOM REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

2.4. Factor 3 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness),

(2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected, if the determination is made that it contained unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

The government shall evaluate the TEP of all Offerors. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the TEP. The TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided in the Pricing Matrix (ITO Attachment 3). These calculations will include all five years of the Basic Period. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in the Pricing Matrix (ITO Attachment 3).

2.4.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness, to include completeness.

Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness.

Reasonableness must represent a price to the government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The government may also use other techniques as needed.

2.4.2. Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the contracting officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the government, even though it is the lowest priced offeror; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.4.3. Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, and must ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism.

To evaluate price realism, the government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.4.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced and/or realistic pricing.

2.4.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions.

The TEP Calculation Methodology is included in the Price Matrix (ITO Attachment 3) as a separate worksheet entitled “Calculation Methodology”. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for all five years of the Basic Period. To reiterate, the TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

2.4.6. Rounding

All proposed dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest cent, including the hourly Over & Above Installation Labor Hourly Rate. The Material Handling/Overhead Rate shall be rounded to four decimal places to the right of the decimal point. If any proposal deviates from this format, the government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP. Compliance with the instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

2.4.7. Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques and Methods The government will review the basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based.

These methods should be in accordance with the offeror’s Disclosure Statement. Any deviations shall be noted and reviewed. The summaries of the estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems will also be reviewed. The government reserves the right to obtain information from the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) as considered necessary.

2.4.8. Past Experience Basis of Estimate

The relevance and application of the offeror’s price estimates based on past experience will be reviewed by the government.

2.4.9. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The government will review information provided in the price volume regarding all price assumptions, limitations, and/or qualifications utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand the offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, the assumptions help provide support for the government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.10. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The government will review the price volume for all offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. This includes review of the areas of price reduction, such as profit, volume, or location discounts, indirect rate reductions, and so forth. Also, the offeror’s explanation of how such reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the government at an unacceptable performance risk will be reviewed.

2.4.11. Subcontractor Pricing

The government will review the price volume regarding information pertaining to subcontractor pricing. The offerors’ determination of fair and reasonable pricing as it relates to subcontractors will be reviewed. Evaluation of subcontractor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair and reasonable. However, subcontractor pricing per se will not be evaluated. The government will review the offerors’ application of their (prime’s) indirect costs, including G&A, Cost of Money, and profit to subcontractor costs/pricing.

2.4.12. A Kit and B Kit Material Information

The government will review the material kinds and quantities provided for the A Kits and B Kits, as well as the associated proposed prices.

2.4.13. Proposed Fixed Rates

The government will review proposed Fixed Price (FP) wrap rates to ensure price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism. NOTE: All wrap rates – whether for Over & Above labor or material, shall be fully burdened (loaded) as composite wrap rates representing a compositive of prime and subcontractor rates. Proposed labor rates shall be IAW FAR 22.602, as applicable. Proposed wrap rates in future years as FP rates shall not be exceeded to include any upward adjustment in future years except as allowable under provisions of FAR 22.602. This includes subcontractor rate revisions in future years, if applicable.

Offerors are strongly advised to note risk for firm fixed pricing/fixed pricing future years, which is considered contractor risk and not risk to the government. Proposed pricing shall be sufficient to cover such contractor risk of future unknowns, such as subcontractor rate increases in future years or changes in designated subcontractor or vendor. This also includes any type of unanticipated changes in subcontractors’ or vendors’ pricing in future years. For example, as later years in the five-year basic period are reached over time, subcontractor pricing (on which these originally proposed wrap rates are based) could change. As a result, future subcontractor pricing may not correspond with the originally proposed rates. Revision of proposed firm fixed pricing will not be accepted by the government to cover any additional costs in future years, except as allowed by FAR 22.602. Offers shall be held to their originally proposed pricing, i.e. proposed wrap rates for the Over & Above CLINs.

If evidence exists that an offeror is deliberately underbidding for purposes of winning contract award, with the intention of “getting well” (through a variety of means to obtain additional money from the government) by upwardly revising proposed pricing (wrap rates or any other proposed pricing on the contract as originally proposed in the competitive source selection) after award to cover costs, the CO will consider such pricing strategy grounds for determining the price/pricing to be unreasonable/unbalanced/unrealistic and may eliminate the proposal from the competition.

2.4.13.1. Over & Above Installation Hourly Labor Rate

The government will review Section 3 of the price volume to verify a fixed price hourly labor rate was provided for each year and will evaluate in accordance with the information stated in Paragraph 2.4.13 above.

2.4.13.2. Over & Above Installation Material Handling/Overhead Rate The government will review Section 3 of the price volume to verify a fixed price rate for material handling/overhead was provided for each year and will evaluate in accordance with the information stated in Paragraph 2.4.13 above.

2.4.17. Contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/Tooling/Material

(CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM)

The government will review all information provided in the price volume regarding compliance and understanding of contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/Material.

2.4.18. Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices/rates, all additional information from the price volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data, other than certified cost or pricing data, as believed necessary to support, justify, or clarify their proposed pricing. All pricing information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.19 Submission of Attachment 3 – Pricing Matrix

The government will confirm receipt of a complete, electronically encoded Pricing Matrix in the required format, with all required unit prices/rates provided.