RFP Attachment 03 - DRAFT _Section M.pdf

1 | P a g e

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

RFP Attachment 03

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. 1 Basis for Contract Award. This is a competitive best value subjective tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov. The Government will select the best overall proposal, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Management Approach, Past Performance, and Price. In this solicitation, Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. As stated in part in FAR 15.101- 1(c), “this process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal…” The Government intends to award a single contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror (IAW FAR Part 9) whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be the most advantageous 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 that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference.

1.2. All offers will be examined for acceptability utilizing RFP Attachment 04 – Conformance Review Checklist. Those offers which fail to meet the material requirement of the RFP will be deemed unacceptable and removed from further consideration. The Government reserves the right to make no award of the IDIQ, nor task orders, depending on the quality of proposals submitted and the availability of funds.

1.1 Evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability and assign ratings as described herein. Only those technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable or higher, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The Government intends to award without discussion, however, in the event the Contracting Officer determines it in the government’s best interest to enter into discussions, any offeror which was originally rated as marginal or unacceptable could become acceptable.

1.2 Evaluate the price of all proposals. The Government will determine the offeror’s total overall evaluated price using the methods described herein. All proposals will be evaluated for Completeness, Reasonableness, Balance, and Professional Compensation Plan realism of the offeror’s proposed prices.

1.3 Assess performance confidence for each offeror using PPI obtained for recent and relevant performance on past and present efforts. PPI provided by the offeror as well as data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources will be utilized as described herein.

1.4 A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, DRAFT https://www.acquisition.gov/

2 | P a g e conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give evaluation credit/positive consideration by assigning strengths for performance in excess of threshold (minimum) requirements identified in technical subfactors.

1.5 The Government intends to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s proposal is the best value solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Accordingly, Offerors are advised to submit an initial proposal that is its best approach/terms for technical and price and is fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. Should the Government determine it is in their best interest to open and conduct discussions, discussions will be held only with those Offerors determined to be in the competitive range. The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each Offeror’s technical capability, past performance, and cost/price. In the event a competitive range is established, and the Government 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 Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

1.6 While the Government intends to award without discussions, the Government reserves the right to enter into discussions. If the Government holds discussions, the Government may issue evaluation notices to Offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to evaluation notices and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

1.7 Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be requested from each Offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions, if conducted. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions in the submitted FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government which could result if new, or revised terms and conditions, are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

1.8 The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. In making the award decision, the Government intends to give more weight to a past performance record that produces a substantial confidence rating than those offers that present satisfactory confidence ratings. The Government intends to give more weight to technical approaches rated “good” or “outstanding” than to those offers that present “acceptable” or lower technical ratings. The Government also intends to give more weight to past performance and technical ratings than to price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. 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 team 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.

3 | P a g e

2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one (1) Sensor Beam Services IDIQ contract from Solicitation No. FA703723R0002. The Government also anticipates awarding subsequent TOs in support of Sensor Beam 2024 following award of Sensor Beam 2024 IDIQ, however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS

1. This is a best-value source selection utilizing the subjective trade-off process to determine the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements as stated in this solicitation. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government will conduct a price analysis to determine whether proposed prices are fair and reasonable/realistic and balanced. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate the Sensor Beam IDIQ:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Functional Knowledge and Capabilities Subfactor 2: Program Management Subfactor 3: Staffing and Skillset Management Plan (SSMP) Subfactor 4: Task Order Scenario Response Subfactor 5: Small Business Participation

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

2. Importance. Technical is greater than Past Performance in importance. Within the Technical Factor, subfactors 1-4 are considered of equal importance. Subfactor 5 is rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable bases and is not part of the tradeoff process. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

3. Factor 1: Technical Capability

a. Elements. The technical evaluation utilizes a separate technical process. The technical evaluation will utilize Table 2A – “Technical Rating Method” rating will utilize Table 2B – “Technical Risk Rating Method”. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each technical subfactors.

b. Technical Rating. An adjectival rating will be assigned to each subfactor in accordance with (IAW) DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1.1, Table 2A and paragraph 3.1.2.1.2 Table 2B (shown below) to reflect the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the

4 | P a g e technical subfactor requirements. The Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) will determine an adjectival rating IAW Table 2A – “Technical Rating Method” and Table 2B – “Technical Risk Rating Method” for subfactors 1-4. In order to be considered for award, the rating for all technical subfactors must be “Acceptable”, “Good”, or “Outstanding” and must be “Low” or “Moderate” for technical risk subfactors. Should any of the subfactors have a rating of “marginal” or “unacceptable” as described in the description section of Table 2A – “Technical Rating Method” or “High” or “Unacceptable” in Table 2B – “Technical Risk Rating Method”, the offer will be removed from further consideration and will not receive award.

Table 2A - Technical Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Purple Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

c. Risk of Unsuccessful Performance. Assessment of technical, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Descriptors as found in Table 2B – “Technical Risk Rating Method” will be utilized to assess the Technical.DRAFT

5 | P a g e

Table 4B - Technical Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that cause an unacceptable performance.

A. Subfactor 1 – Functional Knowledge and Capabilities: The government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to performing the tasks presented in the Sensor Beam 2024 PWS. Where applicable, the offeror is encouraged to identify and present opportunities in which innovation, technology integration, and continuous process improvement can be implemented. Furthermore, the offeror’s understanding of how each PWS task impacts the AF, DoD, and Intelligence Community (IC) will be evaluated.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Functional Knowledge and Capabilities found in Section L. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated by utilizing Table 2A – “Technical Rating Method” and Table 2B – “Technical Risk Rating Method”. As part of the assessment, only capabilities defined in the submitted offeror’s documentation will be considered for this subfactor.

This subfactor is met when:

1) the offeror demonstrates an acceptable approach to meeting the technical and engineering requirements of the PWS.

2) The offeror demonstrates knowledge and capabilities gathered from past contract experience and receives an “acceptable” or higher IAW Table 2A, and a “Low” or “Moderate” technical IAW Table 2B.

B. Subfactor 2 – Program Management: The government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to program management applicable to PWS requirements.

The Government will assess IAW Table 2A – “Technical Rating Method” and Table 2B – “Technical Risk Rating Method” program management capabilities as demonstrated by the

6 | P a g e submittal requirements for Subfactor 2 as found in Section L. The Government will consider prior experience with similar contracts that covered multiple, but complementary, work functions. The assessment will also consider stated strategies to quickly adapt to changing mission requirements, priorities, and workloads. Finally, for Subfactor 2, the evaluation will consider processes to ensure effective and high-quality performance from personnel. As part of the assessment, only capabilities as defined in the submitted offeror’s documentation will be considered for this subfactor.

This subfactor is met when:

1) The offeror demonstrates similar contracting experience with similar program and project management skills.

1. The offeror demonstrates the ability to adapt to changing mission requirements, priorities and workloads without affecting ongoing work. The offeror shall present a strategy to quickly adapt to changing mission requirements, priorities, and workloads with no negative impact upon ongoing workload. Provide approach to customer service:

listening to the customer, understanding customer requirements, and fostering a cohesive and productive team environment.

2. The offeror describes approach to ensuring effective and high-quality performance from your personnel. The offeror shall describe how appropriated metrics will be utilized to measure and track performance and workload.

2) The offeror receives an “acceptable” or higher IAW Table 2A, and a “Low” or “Moderate” technical IAW Table 2B.

C. Subfactor 3 – Staffing and Skillset Management Plan (SSMP): The government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Staffing and Skillset Management Plan (SSMP). Offerors are encouraged to utilize the PWS as a point of reference for delivery of services and personnel required. The offeror’s plan will be evaluated on:

1. Ability to attract and retain high quality staff. The offeror's description of the mechanics and incentives applied to attract and retain high demand low -density skillsets required to fulfill the requirements of the PWS. Details presented in the offeror's methodology of how a fully qualified and fully staffed workforce will be in place at the start of t each tasks order (TO). Details regarding incentives used to hire, retain, maintain, and develop TS/SCI cleared personnel will be evaluated. The offeror's approach to defining and mapping each labor category to the skillset, experience, and certifications needed to fulfill the PWS. The description of how the Staffing and Skillset Management Plan was developed.

2. Loss Rate. The offeror's numeric representation of the acceptable loss rate per quarter. A lower rate of acceptable losses per quarter is considered one indication by the Government that the offeror has the ability to recruit and retain high quality staff over the term of the contract. Retention of quality contract employees is on significant benefit to the Government.

3. Vacancy Fill Strategy. The offeror's description of the mechanisms applied to fill vacancies in a timely manner with zero/minimum mission impact. The offeror's estimated average time to fill a vacant position. The ability to fill vacancy(ies) quickly is of significant benefit to the Government.

7 | P a g e

4. Special performance considerations. In this section, the offeror shall list any event where their company has been involved in a Department of Defense Inspector General complaint or Better Business Bureau grievance. The offeror shall provide a summary and final resolution for any event that occurred after 2010. Events occurring prior to 2010 may be optionally listed. The offeror shall discuss any procedures the company has set in place to prevent a repeat occurrence.

This subfactor is met when the offeror receives an “acceptable” or higher IAW Table 2A, and a “Low” or “Moderate” technical IAW Table 2B.

D. Subfactor 4 – Task Order Scenario Response. The government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal submission using RFP Attachment 05 – “57 IS Proficiency Quiz”, RFP Attachment 06 – “USELMS Database Problem”, and RFP Attachment 07 – “CSDB Database Problem”.

The Government will assess the completeness and correctness of each of these submittal requirements to develop an understanding of the Offeror’s technical capabilities. Utilizing Table 2A – “Technical Evaluation Method”, and Table 2B, – “Technical Risk Rating Method”, the Government will review the twelve (12)-question mission proficiency evaluation which covers a sample of the mission areas found in the PWS. In the same manner, the Government will review two (2) database product file problems: one regarding the Combat Support Database (CSDB) and the other, United States Electromagnetic Systems database (USELMS), to evaluate the Offeror’s capability in these critical areas.

For Technical evaluation purposes, the Government will evaluate each of the twelve (12) questions and two (2) database file questions. Each question in the mission proficiency evaluation will be worth one (1) point each. Due to the mission criticality and timeliness of CSDB and USELMS productivity, each database file problem will be worth two (2) points each for an evaluation total of 16 points. Evaluations totaling fourteen points or greater will result in a Technical rating of Outstanding; 13 points results in a Technical rating of Good; 11-12 points results in a Technical rating of Acceptable; 9-10 points or less will be rated as Technically marginal; and totals 8 and below will be Unacceptable as illustrated in Table 2A – “Technical Rating Method”.

After the Offeror’s Technical evaluation is completed and rated within Table 2A, the Government will utilize subject matter experts (SME’s) in each mission area to evaluate the technical of each Offeror’s proposal as illustrated in Table 2A, – “Technical Rating Method”.

Where applicable, the Government recommends that Offerors show how they arrived at a result as incorrect responses may still be awarded one-half (1/2) point if the problem-solving methodology is correct. Please note, unanswered questions are awarded zero (0) points and an Offeror’s non-participation in any of the evaluations (i.e. mission proficiency evaluation and database file problem solving) in Subfactor 4 may result in a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” rating from Table 2A – “Technical Rating Method” or a “High” or “Unacceptable” rating from Table 2B

– “Technical Risk Rating Method”.

This Subfactor is met when the offeror receives an “acceptable” or higher IAW Table 2A, and a “Low” or “Moderate” technical IAW Table 2B.

8 | P a g e

E. Subfactor 5 – Small Business Participation. (This subfactor will be rated as “Acceptable or Unacceptable”.). All offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of proposed participation/commitment to use of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein. The Government will evaluate the following to determine if the offeror met or exceeded the requirements and will utilize Table 3 – “Small Business Rating Method” for Subfactor 5.

Table 5 - Small Business Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

1. The extent to which firms as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals.

2. The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

3. Identification of the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

4. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

5. The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed quantitative participation.

6. Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

7. Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-9 (DEVIATION 2016- O0009) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (when applicable) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements). The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine which offeror proposes the best value in terms of Small Business Participation. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract.

4. Factor 2: Past Performance

9 | P a g e

a. Overview. The Past Performance evaluation results is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Government shall consider the entire RFP Attachment 01 – “Sensor Beam 2024 IDIQ PWS” tasks when considering each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance.

Therefore, the offeror shall consider the entire Sensor Beam 2024 IDIQ PWS tasks when submitting past performance services that meet the contract’s requirements.

b. Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – “Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method”, excerpted below. In order to be considered for award, the rating for all past performance subfactors must be either “Neutral Confidence”, “Satisfactory Confidence”, or “Substantial Confidence”. Should any of the subfactors have a rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” as described in the description section of Table 5 – “Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method”, the offer will be removed from further consideration and will not receive award.

Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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 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.

c. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance, in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. 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 the technical subfactors and Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered) taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in the FAR.

d. Source of Information. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to 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 http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

10 | P a g e performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

e. Recency. An evaluation of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing, with at least one year of performance history, or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further.

f. Relevancy. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the technical subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance. For each recent past performance contract reviewed, the relevancy of the work performed, to include scope and magnitude, will generally be assessed for the technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Each proposal’s relevancy rating will be based on the offeror’s past performance as well as any teaming partner, or subcontractor’s past performance whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, and Table 4 – “Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method”):

Table 4 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival 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.

g. Quality of Services. The Government will review all past performance information collected, determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the

11 | P a g e information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

h. Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality services assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see Table 5 above). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of offeror’s performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned 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.

i. Impact. More recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance 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.

5. Factor 3: Cost/Price

a. Price/Cost proposals will be evaluated using one of more of the techniques established in FAR

15.404 to ensure they are complete, fair and reasonable, realistic, and balanced, based on the defined TOEP below. For a Price/Cost proposal to be complete, all solicitation requirements identified in Section L shall be completed. All requirements shall be priced, figures correctly calculated, and prices/costs presented within the mandatory Exhibit A and Exhibit B. The Government reserves the right to remove an incomplete proposal from consideration for award.

b. Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP): Offerors’ price proposals will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the Total Overall Evaluation Price (TOEP) as defined below. The TOEP will consist of the total proposed price (calculated FFP and CPFF values, and CR CLINS) of the Base Period, all optional periods, and 50% of the last option year price to cover the option to extend services IAW FAR 52.217-8. Offerors shall not include pricing in their proposal to cover FAR Clause 52.217-8. An Offeror's Total Proposed Price (TPP) for Pricing model (Exhibit A and Exhibit B) whose TOEP: is incomplete, unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), contains unbalanced pricing (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), may not be considered for award. This analysis in no way limits the Government’s right to award to a higher priced offer, if that offer is determined reasonable and represents the best value, based on tradeoffs including benefits associated with additional costs. Color or adjectival ratings will not be assigned to the Price factor.

12 | P a g e

c. Offerors’ price proposals will be evaluated using one or more of the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine fairness and reasonableness. The price evaluation will document reasonableness, balance, and completeness of the proposed TEP as follows:

i. Price Reasonableness

1. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1 is anticipated to determine price reasonableness. Price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of each Offeror’s TOEP to satisfy the requirement mandated by FAR 15.305(a)(1).

2. Price reasonableness will be determined based on comparison of each Offeror’s respective TOEP to the TOEPs from all other Offerors. However, if the Pricing Evaluation team determines that information on competitive proposed prices is not available or is insufficient to determine that the price is fair and reasonable, the Government may use any of the remaining techniques and procedures per FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2) as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.

3. Overall, the proposed price must be reasonable to both the Government and the Offeror. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

ii. Unbalanced Pricing Prices will be reviewed for unbalanced offers IAW FAR 15.404-1. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. Per FAR 52.215- 1(f)(8), the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, including all years of the period of performance, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. A proposal may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

iii. Completeness Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether all pricing information required under Section L of the RFP has been submitted in the format prescribed.

d. Professional Compensation Plan (IAW FAR 52.222-46). Offerors proposals will be evaluated to determine if the provisions at FAR 52.222-46 – Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993) have been satisfied. As part of its price proposal, Offeror shall provide its Total Compensation Plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation.

13 | P a g e

Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of the work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The Government is concerned with the quality and stability of the workforce to be employed on this contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees and could be viewed as evidence of a failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements. Failure to meet the Professional Compensation Plan requirements may render your proposal ineligible for award.

e. Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer. The Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

(End Section M)

(End of Attachment 03)