Section J Attachment 11 Evaluation Criteria 21 Oct 21.pdf

FA8630-22-R-4000

Section J, Attachment 11 Evaluation Criteria

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This best value tradeoff source selection is conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the United States Government Acquisition website, http://acquisition.gov.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of

Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. The Contract may be awarded to the

Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, 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. 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. 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 past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the difference in price. 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;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the Parts and Repair Ordering System (PROS) Program. The Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, and whose proposal meets all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the solicitation requirements may result in the Offeror being determined 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.

1.4 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any proposal from this competition by determining it to be grossly deficient prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors if an initial assessment shows the proposal fails to address requirements of the Request For Proposals (RFP), fails to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements of the RFP, or does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the RFP.

http://acquisition.gov/

The evaluation criteria includes a Gate at Section M paragraph 2.5.3, Factor 1, Subfactor 1. The

Government will reject a proposal at this Gate without reviewing or performing an initial evaluation on the rest of the proposal if the Gate criteria is not met.

1.5 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (See FAR 15.001). The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of a proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the Competitive Range Determination.

1.6 Competitive Range Determination

A competitive range of the most highly rated proposals will be established IAW FAR 15.306(c) in the event discussions with Offerors are to be conducted. During the evaluation process, one or more competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition that are not among the most highly rated proposals at the time of the determination. If the CO 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 CO, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors at the outset for purposes of efficiency, based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), or prior to issuance of the final proposal revision (FPR) request. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.7 Discussions

The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices

(ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the proposal be determined unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 General

The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors.

Factors and Subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Approved Contractor Purchasing System

Subfactor 2: Information Technology

Subfactor 3: Contract Competition

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.2 Relative Importance

Subfactor 1.1 is a pass/fail gate used to determine whether an Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated.

Among Offerors who pass the Subfactor 1.1 Gate, the relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance, and Price are listed in descending order of importance, with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance, and Factor 3 (Price) is least important. Within Factor 1 (Technical), the Technical rating and the Technical Risk rating are of equal importance. Within Factor 1 (Technical), Subfactors 1.2, and 1.3 are of equal importance. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. However, price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

2.3 Initial Evaluation

This competition includes a mixture of written and oral presentations. Each proposal will initially be evaluated for its ability to meet the solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions (see paragraph

1.3), and each proposal not eliminated at the outset for being grossly deficient (see paragraph 1.4) will be further evaluated for compliance with the Gate at Subfactor 1.1, Measure of Merit 1. Those proposals determined to be grossly deficient for failing to meet the requirements of the solicitation, or failing to comply with the Gate will not receive any further evaluation and are ineligible for award. All ineligible Offerors will receive notice of the basis for this determination from the CO after the initial competitive range determination. Subsequent notices of elimination may be provided at later stages of the source selection, as applicable, including for the purposes of efficient competition (see paragraph 1.6).

2.4 Contractual Integration

The awarded contract documents will reflect all beneficial aspects of the awardee’s proposal and all above-threshold (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given in the source selection process (e.g., an earned strength associated with a purple or blue Technical/Technical Risk rating, above-threshold elements proposed for valued requirements), regardless of source selection process utilized per AFFARS MP5315.3 Source

Selection 2019 Edition (Revised: 26 Jul 21), Paragraph 3.12.

2.4.1 Strengths

A strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the

Government during contract performance.

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to assess strengths to a proposal that exceed the requirements. Offerors may identify strengths in the Technical

Volume of the proposal for Government consideration. Additionally, Subfactor 1.2, Information Technology and Subfactor 1.3, Competition identify specific strengths that will be assessed by the Government.

The Government reserves the right to award strengths that will be contractually binding upon contract award. To incorporate strengths, the Offeror shall make recommendations in the appropriate contractual document(s) to include Section J Attachments with change bars.

The Government reserves the right to determine the final contract language to incorporate these strengths into the contract.

2.5 Factor 1: Technical

The Technical Evaluation provides for two (2) distinct and related assessments that are of equal importance: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. Any Subfactor evaluated as file://///Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15304

“Unacceptable” (whether in the Technical rating or in the Technical Risk rating) will render the proposal unawardable.

2.5.1 Technical Rating

The evaluation of the technical factor provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Technical Ratings will be assessed at the subfactor level, using the Measures of Merit (MoM) set forth below. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the technical ratings described in Table 1 – Technical Ratings

(Color Rating) or Table 2 – Technical Ratings (Acceptable/Unacceptable), as shown below:

Subfactor 1.1 will be evaluated using Table 2 – Technical Ratings

(Acceptable/Unacceptable). Subfactors 1.2 and 1.3 will be evaluated using both Table

1 – Technical Ratings (Color Rating) and Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS (COLOR RATING)

Color

Rating

Adjectival

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

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

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates 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 unawardable.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

(ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE)

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.5.2 Technical Risk Rating

Assessment of technical risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (See FAR 15.001). A significant weakness is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (See FAR 15.001). It considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Only Subfactors 1.2 and 1.3 will receive one of the technical risk ratings described in Table

3 – Technical Risk Rating, as shown below.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) 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 potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

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 material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

2.5.3 Subfactor 1.1 Gate, Approved Contractor Purchasing System

Reminder: Subfactor 1.1 will be evaluated using Table 2 – Technical Ratings

(Acceptable/Unacceptable).

Description: This subfactor constitutes a Gate Criterion to determine whether or not the

Offeror has a DCMA-approved Contractor Purchasing System.

2.5.3.1 Measure of Merit 1: Gate

This gate criterion is met when the Offeror provides all substantiating documentation as instructed in Section L, paragraph 5.2.3.1 Subfactor 1.1: Gate, Approved

Contractor Purchasing System.

NOTE: The Offeror must meet MoM 1 to be considered eligible for contract award. If the Offeror fails to meet MoM 1, the Offeror will be considered ineligible for contract award and eliminated without further evaluation of its proposal.

2.5.4 Subfactor 1.2 Information Technology

Reminder: Subfactor 1.2 will be evaluated using both Table 1 – Technical Ratings

(Color Rating) and Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings.

Description: The Information Technology Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach to design and implement a Contractor Technology Solution (CTS).

2.5.4.1 Measure of Merit 1: Contractor Technology Solution (CTS)

This measure of merit is met when the Offeror demonstrates a sound approach to design and implement a CTS.

NOTE: Strengths may be awarded for this subfactor which will make a proposal eligible for technical ratings higher than Green/Acceptable. See Section M paragraph

2.4.1.

The Offeror can earn a strength for an existing CTS with the capability to interface with the following legacy system characteristics:

Data stored in pre-relational DBMS based on hierarchical structures

(Software AG) ADABAS data structures, with approximately 2 million lines of NATURAL and COBOL code

SAMIS

Extensive Batch system executed by Job Control Language

(JCL) that runs shortened cycles during the day and a complete cycle at night.

Utilizes COMPLETE as the teleprocessing monitor for its online environment which is programmed in Software AG’s

NATURAL code base combination of online and batch processing components

Significant flat-file interfaces

If a strength is awarded it will be contractually binding, IAW Section L Ref

3.5.3 and Section M Ref 2.4.1.

2.5.4.2 Measure of Merit 2: Technology Demonstration

This measure of merit is met when the Offeror demonstrates a sound approach to address MoM 2 capabilities in Section L Paragraph 3.5.6.2 through a CTS capability demonstration during the oral presentation. See Section L, paragraph

3.5.6.2 for Oral Presentation details.

NOTE: Strengths may be awarded for this Subfactor which will make a proposal eligible for technical ratings higher than Green/Acceptable. See paragraph 2.4.1.

If a strength is proposed during the oral presentation, the information shall be submitted in writing as a narrative included with the oral presentation materials in order for the strength to be realized and contractually binding, IAW FAR

15.102(f).

The Offeror can earn a strength if the live demonstration identifies an existing capability, utilized on a current effort, which meets all PROS VI CTS requirements (PWS Paragraph 2.1.7) or one currently in development to meet or exceed all requirements for the proposed effort.

The Offeror can earn a strength for a proposed CTS that exceeds 90% development, as evidenced during the oral presentation and documented in the narrative.

If a strength is awarded it will be contractually binding, IAW Section L Ref

3.5.3 and Section M Ref 2.4.1.

2.5.4.3 Measure of Merit 3: Technology Solution Study and Implementation

This measure of merit is met when the Offeror demonstrates a sound approach for integration/interoperability with SAMIS (USG IT System) through a CTS study and final implementation schedule with full operational capability IAW the timelines at

PWS 1.2.10 and 2.1.1.

NOTE: Strengths may be awarded for this subfactor which will make a proposal eligible for technical ratings higher than Green/Acceptable. See Section M paragraph 2.4.1.

The Offeror can earn a strength for completion of a study and delivery of a

Project Planning Chart (PPC) in 25 or less calendar days.

The Offeror can earn a strength for CTS implementation 80 or less calendar days and shall be supported by the PPC.

If a strength is awarded it will be contractually binding, IAW Section L Ref

3.5.3 and Section M Ref 2.4.1.

2.5.5 Subfactor 1.3 Contract Competition

Reminder: Subfactor 1.3 will be evaluated using both Table 1 – Technical Ratings

(Color Rating) and Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings.

Description: The Contract Competition Subfactor evaluates the Offeror's proposed approach to Vendor Management, Combating Obsolescence, and Small Business

Participation.

2.5.5.1 Measure of Merit 1: Vendor Management

This measure of merit is met when the Offeror demonstrates a sound approach to obtain competition among vendors.

NOTE: Strengths may be awarded for this subfactor which will make a proposal eligible for technical ratings higher than Green/Acceptable. See paragraph 2.4.1.

The Offeror can earn a strength by providing an active vendor list (any vendor awarded a contract during CY20), identified as large business or small business (include small business category), identified as competitive awards, award date and total dollar value awarded for a minimum of 100 Vendors. All required data must be presented in a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet.

The Offeror can earn a strength by demonstrating established contractual relationships (parts, licensures, and/or divested product lines) with a minimum of 5 Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs).

If a strength is awarded it will be contractually binding, IAW Section L Ref

3.5.3 and Section M Ref 2.4.1. The strength will be utilized to validate and/or revise Service Summary 1 and Objective Performance Incentive 1.

2.5.5.2 Measure of Merit 2: Combating Obsolescence

This MoM is met when the Offeror provides a sound approach for combating obsolescence.

2.5.5.3 Measure of Merit 3: Small Business Participation

This MoM is met when the Offeror provides a sound approach to Small Business

Participation. A sound Small Business Subcontracting Plan that satisfies FAR 52.219-

9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Alternative II, and DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts) is required to be submitted and approved by the Contracting Officer (CO) before a large business Offeror can be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented. Award cannot be made to an

Offeror deemed not responsible by the CO.

2.6 Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

2.6.1 Ratings

The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 – Performance Confidence Ratings, excerpted below.

TABLE 4 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the

Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the 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.

2.6.2 Evaluation Process

Under the Past Performance Factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror’s present and past work record to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performance as proposed. The Past

Performance Evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements, including cost and schedule. The Past Performance Evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror’s recent and relevant Past Performance, including how the Offeror is currently performing ongoing efforts, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the Technical Subfactors. The Government may consider Past Performance in the aggregate, in addition to on an individual contract basis.

All recent and relevant Past Performance citations submitted in accordance with Section L will be evaluated.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government including, but not limited to:

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract

Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management

Agency (DCMA); and commercial sources.

2.6.2.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the Past Performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or performed during the past three (3) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation, with at least six (6) months of performance on the contract. If the effort began more than 3 years before the date of issuance of this solicitation, only the effort which occurred during the past 3 years will be considered recent. Past Performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.6.2.2 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. For each recent

Past Performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors, however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered.

Relevancy rating consideration will be given to Offerors whose Past Performance relates to the current requirements of this Solicitation, to include consideration in hosting Information Technology (IT) systems, compliance with Security Interfaces and Cyber Security regulations, and interfacing commercial systems with legacy systems. Consideration will be given to history of teaming relationships for areas including IT, additive manufacturing, reverse engineering, and 3-D scanning. In addition, consideration will be given to demonstrated performance of Solicitation requirements related to Vendor management/competition, commercial buying services, standard/non-standard part procurement, repair support, task order support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and FMS support/customer.

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s Past Performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and significant or critical subcontractor(s). A subcontractor is deemed to be a significant subcontractor when it is proposed to perform more than 10% of the work (based on total contract value) on a contract. A subcontractor is deemed to be critical if it performs aspects of the effort the Offeror considers critical to overall successful performance.

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 Past Performance

Questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of the Offeror’s Past Performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings, excerpted below:

TABLE 5 – 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.

2.6.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the Performance Quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent and relevant

Past Performance citation reviewed, the Performance Quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the

Offeror’s performance meets mission requirements, the assessment will consider things such as the Offeror’s history of forecasting and controlling costs, adhering to schedules

(including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all Past Performance information available, regardless of its source.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as Past

Performance information that supports a less-than-satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system.

For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider any available information related to the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the appropriateness and effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts in Table 6 below:

TABLE 6 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

Performance Quality Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Exceptional

The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government’s benefit. The contractor’s performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective action taken by the contractor were highly effective

Purple Very Good

The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Green Satisfactory

The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Yellow Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally

Red Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problems for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

White Not Applicable Unable to provide a score. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of Performance.

2.6.3.1 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the Performance Relevancy and Performance Quality Assessments, Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

Although the Past Performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors, 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 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. A strong record of relevant Past Performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral Confidence rating.

2.7 Factor 3: Price

The Price Volume will be evaluated for (1) Total Evaluated Price (TEP), (2) Reasonableness, (3)

Unbalanced Pricing, and (4) Completeness. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government with FAR 15.404-1(g). Price for award purposes will be evaluated for the basic, with initial task order, plus all options.

2.7.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Pricing Matrix adds up to a bottom-line dollar figure for the base period and all option years. The Pricing Matrix will contain all CLIN prices and calculate the TEP. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of all CLIN prices for the base period and all option periods to include Fill Prices, Service Prices, OPIs, Task Orders, and Commercial Transactions (Section

J, Attachment 5). The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only, and does not necessarily reflect an actual award value of any ensuing contract; however, all fill and service prices in the completed Pricing Matrix will become part of the contract and binding on the successful Offeror. Evaluation of option prices shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.7.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in

FAR 15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.7.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether it is unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable

TEP, the price of one (1) or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government. The burden of proof for demonstrating balanced pricing rests with the

Offeror.

2.7.4 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with

Section L of the solicitation.