Att M1 - ASI TPMS FAR 16.507-2.pdf

N00421-27-R-1008 Attachment M1

ATTACHMENT M1 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SEP 2026)

PART A – GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1 The Government intends to make a fair opportunity selection in accordance with FAR 16.507-2 and award one Task Order (TO) to the responsible Contractor whose Offer conforms to the Request for Offer (RFO).

1.2 The award will be made to the Contractor determined to have the Highest Technically Ranked Offer (HTRO), provided that the HTRO achieves an assigned Past Performance confidence rating of 'Neutral Confidence' or higher, and the proposed Cost/Price is determined fair and reasonable, realistic, and balanced.

1.3 Technical ranking determines the HTRO. Initially, Past Performance and Cost/Price will be evaluated only for the HTRO.

1.4 The evaluation approach permits a best-value tradeoff only if the HTRO (or the next highest technically ranked eligible Offer being evaluated for award) receives a Past Performance confidence rating of 'Limited Confidence' or 'No Confidence'. In such an event, the Government will evaluate the Past Performance and Cost/Price of the next highest technically ranked Offer(s).

The tradeoff will then be conducted across the Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price factors between the two eligible evaluated Offers to determine which Offer represents the best overall value to the Government.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

2.1 This TO competition is a streamlined evaluation conducted under FAR 16.507-2 and does not use the formal source selection procedures of FAR Subpart 15.2. Accordingly:

Competitive range determinations are not required Competitive Negotiations as defined in FAR 15.204-2 will not occur Pre-award debriefings and pre-award notifications of exclusion prior to award are not required and the Government will not provide them Terminology similar to FAR 15.2 does not imply application of FAR 15.2 procedures

2.2 The Government will afford all Contractors a fair opportunity to submit an Offer. Initial Offers must represent the Contractor’s best terms and pricing.

2.3 The Government may conduct oral or written interchanges at any time during the evaluation with one, some, all, or none of the Contractors to:

Clarify understanding of requirements Enhance the Government’s understanding of the Offer Resolve errors or omissions

Finalize TO terms Obtain other information to facilitate the Government’s ability to evaluate the Offer and make a fair opportunity selection Such interchanges do not constitute competitive negotiations under FAR 15.2.

2.4 The Government may use information in its evaluation other than that submitted by the Contractor in its Offer to validate Offer content.

Failure to comply with Section J, Attachment L1 Instructions may result in the Offer being found non-compliant and ineligible for award with no further consideration or evaluation of the Offer.

3.0 INCORPORATION OF PROPOSED FEATURES

The Government may incorporate beneficial features of a Contractor’s proposed technical approach directly into the awarded TO, with or without interchanges.

PART B – EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

1.0 EVALUATION OVERVIEW

1.1 The following factors will be used to evaluate Offers.

Factor Number Factor Name Factor Description Evaluation Type 1 Technical Key Personnel and Sample Tasks All Offers ranked amongst one another

2 Past Performance Recency, Relevancy, and Quality Confidence Assessment

3 Cost/Price Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Fair and Reasonable, Realistic, and Balanced (Not Rated)

1.2 The Government will evaluate Offers using the following steps:

Step 1: Technical Evaluation (Comparative Analysis) – Evaluate and rank Offers strictly on their Technical volume to identify the HTRO.

Step 2: Past Performance and Cost/Price Evaluation of the HTRO - Open and evaluate the Past Performance and Cost/Price volumes of only the HTRO.

a. If the Past Performance confidence rating of the HTRO is ‘Neutral Confidence’ or higher, and the proposed cost/price is determined fair and reasonable, realistic, and balanced, the Government will award to the HTRO.

b. If the Past Performance confidence assessment rating of the HTRO is ‘Limited

Confidence’ or ‘No Confidence’, the Government will open and evaluate the Past

Performance and Cost/Price volumes of the next highest technically ranked Offer (e.g., the #2 ranked Offer). The Government will then conduct a best-value tradeoff between the HTRO and that next highest ranked Offer.

Step 3: Unrealistic/Unreasonable or Unbalanced Cost/Price Exception -If, through the Government’s evaluation of Cost/Price, the Contracting Officer determines that an Offer (including the HTRO or any subsequent Offer evaluated under these procedures) is unrealistic, unreasonable, or unbalanced to a degree that poses an unacceptable level of risk to the Government, the Offer may be found ineligible for award and excluded from any best-value tradeoff analysis. In that event, the Government may open and evaluate the Past Performance and Cost/Price volumes of the next highest technically ranked Offer.

a. If the Past Performance confidence assessment rating of this next highest technically ranked Offer is ‘Neutral Confidence’ or higher, and their proposed cost/price is determined fair and reasonable, realistic, and balanced, the Government will award to this Contractor.

b. If the Past Performance confidence assessment rating of this next highest ranked Offer is ‘Limited Confidence’ or ‘No Confidence’, the Government will sequentially open and evaluate the Past Performance and Cost/Price volumes of the subsequent next highest technically ranked Offer (e.g., the #3 ranked Offer) and conduct a best-value tradeoff between them.

Step 4: Best-Value Tradeoff and Relative Importance of Factors – In the event a tradeoff is triggered, the comparative assessment will include the Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price factors. The Technical factor is more important than Past Performance, and Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price. The Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP), as defined below in Paragraph 4.4, will be used in the best value tradeoff analysis.

1.3 Evaluation Approach.

1.3.1 Focused Documentation.

1.3.1.1 The evaluation will not document every component of the Contractor’s Offer.

1.3.1.2 The Government will assess facts or findings that may:

1.3.1.2.1 Raise or lower the expectation of success, AND/OR

1.3.1.2.2 Impact the technical ranking, AND/OR

1.3.1.2.3 Impact the past performance confidence assessment rating

1.3.1.3 Facts and findings will be documented as a Positive Finding, Negative Finding, or Deficiency (definitions below in Table 1).

1.3.1.4 Offers assigned a Deficiency will be ineligible for award with no further consideration or evaluation of the Offer.

1.3.2 Use of Bullets and Charts.

1.3.2.1 Bullets and/or charts may be used alongside or in place of narrative descriptions to highlight facts or findings related to the evaluation factors.

2.0 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL EVALUATION

2.1 The Government will perform a comparative analysis of Volume 1 – Technical Offers, directly comparing Offers to determine the HTRO.

2.2 The Government will evaluate the Contractor's Offer based on the elements below. There is no relative importance or weighting to the elements. These elements are not individually rated subfactors; rather, they are evaluated holistically to assess positive findings, negative findings, and deficiencies within the Offer. The Government will rank Technical Offers (first, second, third, etc.).

2.2.1 Element 1: Key Personnel. The Government will evaluate all proposed Key Personnel submitted via an Attachment T1 to:

2.2.1.1 Ensure the correct labor categories and number of Key Personnel are proposed in accordance with Section J, Attachment 01 - SOW, Paragraph 3.4.1.1.

2.2.1.2 Ensure the Key Personnel proposed via an Attachment T1 are consistent with the named Key Personnel proposed within the Attachment C1 for the base year and all subsequent option years (option years 1-4).

2.2.1.3 Ensure the Contractor’s Letter of Commitment for any Key Personnel proposed as contingent hire to ensure it contains the required information stated within Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 3.3.1.1.3.

2.2.1.4 Ensure that the proposed Key Personnel is not a prospective hire.

2.2.1.5 Ensure that the proposed Key Personnel meet the minimum qualifications stated within Section J, Attachment 01 - SOW, Paragraphs 3.2.2.1 and 3.4.

2.2.2 Element 2: Sample Tasks. The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s proposed approach to the sample task for demonstrated understanding of the requirements, adequacy of approach, potential cost or schedule efficiencies, and associated risk to performance.

2.3 Evaluation Findings.

Table 1 – Evaluation Finding Definitions

Positive Finding (or + or plus)

An aspect of the Contractor’s Offer with merit and/or benefit to the Government that exceeds the specified requirements; and/or decreases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Negative Finding (or – or minus)

An aspect of the Contractor’s Offer that unfavorably impacts the demonstrated understanding of the requirements, adequacy of approach, and/or increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of an Offer to meet a Government requirement.

3.0 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

3.1 There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Contractor’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract reference has been performed within three (3) years of the RFO release date. Past performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

3.2 The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess how relevant the past performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this RFO.

3.2.1 The greater the quantity of relevant past performance references provided, the stronger the predictor of future success and the greater influence those references will have on the Past Performance Confidence Assessment.

3.2.2 The Government will evaluate the relevancy of each past performance reference using a qualitative assessment of its similarity in scope, complexity, and magnitude to the requirements of this RFO. The considerations described in Table 2 are provided as informational guidelines to assist the Government in assessing the relevancy of each reference; they are not separate pass/fail requirements or minimum thresholds. The Government will consider the totality of the information provided for each reference in assessing its relevancy rating.

Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings and Definitions

Rating Definition

Relevant Relevant: Present/past performance reference involved essentially the same, similar, or some of the scope, complexity, and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFO requires.

Scope: Past Performance reference demonstrates experience across core functional areas similar to both Section J, Attachment 01 - SOW paragraph

3.3.1 (Technical PM Support) and SOW paragraph 3.3.3 (Acquisition Support)

Complexity: Past Performance reference demonstrates experience similar to DoD financial management, procurement and/or Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE), and managing moderately complex data repositories.

Magnitude: Past Performance reference demonstrates an effort on the scale of approximately 20 FTEs per year(~38,400 hours) or an estimated annual value of approximately $3.6M.

Not Relevant

Not Relevant: Present/past performance reference involved little or none of the scope, complexity, and magnitude of effort and complexities this RFO requires.

Scope: Past Performance reference does not demonstrate experience across core functional areas similar to both Section J, Attachment 01 - SOW paragraphs 3.3.1 and 3.3.3. Experience is limited to administrative, graphics, or commercial retail services/practices.

Complexity: Past Performance reference lacks experience in DoD financial management, procurement and/or PPBE, and does not include experience managing moderately complex data repositories..

Magnitude: Past Performance reference demonstrates an effort substantially smaller in scale or resource commitment than the anticipated requirement.

3.3 The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Contractor’s recent relevant past performance. Past performance that is not both recent and relevant, will not be evaluated for overall quality. The Government will evaluate the Contractor, principal Subcontractors’, and JV team members’ performance of the contract reference(s) being evaluated, and focus its evaluation on the following areas:

(a) Meeting technical requirements (i.e., the quality of technical performance);

(b) Meeting schedule requirements (e.g., on time or late delivery);

(c) Controlling contract cost;

(d) Managing the contracted effort;

(e) Regulatory compliance, and

(f) The demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems.

3.3.1 A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating is assigned based on the Contractor’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

3.3.2 The Government will employ the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method described in the table below. In the case of a Contractor without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Contractor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Contractor shall be determined to have Neutral past performance.

3.3.3 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Contractor will successfully perform the RFO’s requirements based on the Contractor’s overall record of quality of performance on recent relevant past performance record(s). The Government will use the ratings and definitions provided below in Table 3.

Table 3 – Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Contractor’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Contractor’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Limited Confidence Based on the Contractor’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Contractor’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Contractor will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4.0 FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE EVALUATION

In accordance with the HTRO evaluation process, the Government will evaluate the cost/price Offer of the selected Contractor(s) as determined by the steps above in Part B, Paragraph 1.0.

The cost/price evaluation will not be scored or adjectivally rated.

4.1 Subcontractor Contract Type Other than Cost Reimbursable. The Government will not perform realism analysis on Subcontractor Offers that are proposed as a contract type other than cost reimbursable (e.g., FFP, FFP LOE, T&M etc.).

4.1.1 Key Personnel Contingent Hires (if applicable). The Government will confirm the Letter of Commitment for any contingent hires proposed as Key Personnel includes the required information stated in Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 3.3.1.1.3.

4.2 Cost Reimbursable Contract Type. The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s and Subcontractor’s Volume 3, Attachment C1- Cost Workbook and Attachment C2 – Cost Reimbursable Narrative for cost realism and reasonableness.

4.3 Cost Realism Analysis for Contractor and Subcontractors proposing a cost reimbursable contract type.

The Government will perform a cost realism analysis to determine the most probable cost (MPC). The MPC is the Contractor’s total cost, including fee, and any additional adjustments the Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic for all periods (base and all option periods exclusive of the six-month performance period permitted via FAR 52.217- 8 Option to Extend Services). The MPC may differ from the proposed cost. The Government, generally, will not make downward adjustments.

4.3.1 Any discrepancy(ies) between the proposed labor mix and hour allocation and Government specified labor mix and hour allocation stated in Attachment C4 will make the Offer ineligible for award, with no further evaluation of the Cost/Price Offer conducted by the Government.

4.3.2 In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government will review the prospective Contractor and Subcontractor Offers as follows:

4.3.2.1 Prospective Hires. The Government will utilize the minimum rates stated within the “Minimum Direct Labor Rates” worksheet of Attachment C1 or if applicable, the rates included in the Contractors direct labor FPRA or FPRR with DCMA/DCAA. Offers with prospective hire direct labor rates lower than those in the Attachment C1 "Minimum Direct Labor Rates” worksheet or if applicable, lower than the rates stated in DCMA/DCAA direct labor FPRA or FPRR will be ineligible for award.

4.3.2.2 Contingent Hires. The Government will utilize the salary information stated within the Letter of Commitment submitted as an enclosure to Attachment C2. Offers with a contingent hire direct labor rate lower than that stated in the Letter of Commitment will be ineligible for award.

4.3.2.3 Current Employees. The Government will verify the direct labor rates proposed against the payroll verification provided within Table 6 – Hourly Direct Labor Rates for Current Employees of Attachment C2. If the rates proposed are not the same as the payroll verification rates the Government will review the justification provided and upwardly adjust as appropriate.

If the Contractor did not apply escalation to the payroll verified rates to coincide with the beginning of the Period of Performance and does not provide adequate justification for not applying escalation, the Government will adjust the payroll verified rate to include applicable escalation.

4.3.2.4 Pertinent cost information includes, but not limited to, the most current Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Direct and/or Indirect Rate Approval Letters; DCAA Forward Pricing Rate Agreement or Recommendation; and/or Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Letters (such as accounting system letters, property management system letters, etc.), as applicable, as well as Contractor-specific historical indirect and escalation rate information, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Wage Data, and BLS Employment Cost Index (ECI) information, may be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC.

4.3.2.5 Escalation

4.3.2.5.1 Non-Service Contract Labor Standard (Non-SCLS) Labor Categories. The Government will utilize pertinent cost information. If the Contractor and or Subcontractor proposes escalation rates lower than their historical escalation rate actuals, the Contractor and Subcontractor must provide a justification for the rate proposed. Contractors and Subcontractors who fail to provide rationale to support proposing a lower escalation rate than the most recent historical escalation rate actuals may result in a determination that the rate is unrealistic and the Government will upwardly adjust the escalation rate to coincide with pertinent cost information.

If no historical escalation rate actuals are provided and the escalation rate proposed is lower than the escalation rate provided in Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 3.3.1.2.1, the Government will upwardly adjust the proposed escalation to the Government’s escalation rate stated in Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 3.3.1.2.1.

4.3.2.6 Indirect rates. The Government will utilize pertinent cost information. Contractors and Subcontractors who fail to provide rationale to support proposing a lower indirect rate than the most recent historical actual indirect rate or approved DCAA rates may result in a determination that the rate(s) are unrealistic, and the Government will upwardly adjust the indirect rate to coincide with pertinent cost information.

4.3.2.7 Reserved.

4.3.2.8 If there is a discrepancy between the Subcontractor’s fully burdened rates in the Contractor’s C1 and the fully burdened rates in the Subcontractor’s C1, the higher of the two fully burdened rates will be utilized for cost realism in establishing the Government’s MPC.

4.3.2.9 The higher value of any individual cost element will prevail if there are discrepancies within the Cost/Price Volume. Discrepancies may impact the Government’s cost realism analysis of the Contractor’s Offer or its eligibility for award.

4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is incorporated in the RFO. The TEP will include the price of the six-month performance period permitted under the clause, to account for a situation where invoking of the clause, in whole or part, becomes necessary. Specifically, the evaluated price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the Government’s MPC of the final option period by two (2) to establish the estimated cost/price for the six-month option to extend services.

4.5 Reasonableness Analysis. The proposed cost/price will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Techniques may include comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFO, comparison to historical prices, and comparison to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). The Government reserves the right to use other price analysis techniques and procedures if necessary. As part of the reasonableness analysis, the Government will identify all instances where a proposed fully burdened labor cost exceeds the NAVAIR labor tripwire of $420K annually per employee. This also applies to fully burdened subcontractor employee labor cost, inclusive of the prime contractor’s pass-through burden. Any fully burdened annual labor cost exceeding the tripwire may ultimately be determined unreasonable absent justification.

4.6 Minimum Labor Cost. The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s proposed labor cost to ensure it meets or exceeds the minimum labor cost stated in Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 3.1.4. If the proposed labor cost falls below the stated minimum cost, the Government will review the justification provided by the Contractor. If the proposed labor cost is less than the Government’s stated minimum labor cost without adequate or any justification, the Offer will be ineligible for award.

Contractors and Subcontractors proposing the Minimum Direct Labor Rates for Prospective Hires is not adequate justification.

4.7 Organizational Conflict of Interest. The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s, including Subcontractor's, response to KTXT.209-9511 Organizational Conflict of Interest Representation and LTXT.209-9513 Organizational Conflict of Interest Instructions to assess whether or not an actual or potential OCI exists as defined in FAR Subpart 9.5. If an actual or potential OCI is identified that cannot be feasibly mitigated, avoided, or resolved in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5, the Contracting Officer will determine whether such interests or contracts present potential organizational conflicts of interest which could preclude award to the Contractor.

4.8 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will evaluate Offers for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-6. An Offer may be ineligible for award if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.9 Responsibility Determination. In accordance with FAR part 9, the Contracting Officer will conduct a responsibility determination of the apparent successful Contractor prior to award.

4.9.1 Cost-Reimbursement Adequacy Standard. In accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a)(3), the Contracting Officer must verify the Contractor’s accounting system can adequately segregate, accumulate and allocate costs specifically attributed to this task order.

4.9.1.1 DCAA Pre-Award Survey. The Contracting Officer will utilize DCAA or DCMA (as applicable) accounting system determination records to verify adequacy. If the apparent successful Contractor has not previously been audited, the Government will initiate a pre-award survey in accordance with Section J, Attachment L1, Part B, Paragraph 3.2.4.1.

4.9.1.2 Ineligibility for Award. If the DCAA pre-award survey results in a determination that the Contractor’s accounting system is not adequate, or if the system cannot be verified as adequate prior to the scheduled award date, the Contracting Officer will make a formal determination of non-responsibility under FAR 9.104-1(e). Consequently, the Contractor will be deemed ineligible for award, and the Government will proceed to evaluate the next highest ranked Offer.

5.0 Use of Super Intelligence (SI) tools in Proposal Evaluation

5.1 Use of SI tools in Support of Evaluations. The Government may employ SI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of Offers. SI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing Offer content, identifying compliance with the Offer and RFO requirements, and identifying risk.

5.2 Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions. Notwithstanding the use of SI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgments, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, and fair opportunity decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed Government personnel. The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any SI tool.

5.3 Contractor Confidentiality and Data Protection. The SI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary, trade secret, and source selection sensitive information. All SI processing will occur exclusively within secure, Government-authorized environments approved for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) (minimum DoD Impact Level 5 (IL5) or equivalent). Offer data ingested by the tool will not be used to train commercial SI models. Any SI-generated reports or summaries utilized by evaluators will be retained in the official procurement file in accordance with federal record retention policies.