Section M DISC DRAFT 4 Dec 20.docx

DTRI Instrumentation Support Contract (DISC) Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

HQ0855-21-R-0004

HQ0855-21-R-0004

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE INDEX

Solicitation #: HQ0855-21-R-0004 Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Pursuant to FAR 15.204-1, this section will be removed upon award of the contract and retained in the contract file.

1.0 BASIS OF AWARD

1.1 Best Value Tradeoff

1.1.1 This is a best-value competitive source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) part 215, and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Manual 5013.06-M, Source Selection Procedures. FAR/DFARS regulations are available electronically at www.acquistion.gov, while MDA-specific manuals are available in the offeror’s library.

1.1.2 The Government may award a contract without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306 (a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the PCO later determines them to be necessary. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation.

1.1.3 Award may be made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that payment of a higher price is justified by the beneficial positive aspects of the proposal in the non-cost factors.

1.1.4 Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, and instructions contained in Section L, may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award; this includes incomplete proposal submission (e.g., missing Volumes in electronic format).

1.1.5 The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic, including contract terms and conditions, program commitments, unrealistically high or low price, or a proposal that is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of understanding/competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of all stated requirements. Further, the Government may reject any proposal that is incomplete (e.g., missing Volume).

1.1.6 Conditions for Award

The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the Technical Factor, Management Factor, and the Cost/Price factor. A best value analysis will not be performed for any Offeror whose proposal is found to be unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award.

· The Offeror must be deemed responsible by the PCO in accordance with FAR 9.1, as supplemented, and

· Conform 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

· Have an approved Top Secret facility security clearance (FCL) in place prior to award, and

· The Offeror’s proposal must comply with Department of Defense (DoD) Class Deviation 2020-O0008, Revision 1 to FAR Clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting proposed in Volume II Executive Summary, Tab 3.

1.2 Other Considerations

1.2.1 Per FAR 9.504(e), the PCO shall award the contract to the apparent successful Offeror unless a conflict of interest is determined to exist that cannot be avoided or mitigated. The PCO reserves the right to reject proposals from Offerors which do not adequately avoid or mitigate all OCIs or are inconsistent with the identified DISC OCI restrictions. If an OCI is not adequately resolved, the PCO reserves the right to notify the Offeror and allow the Offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond before making an award decision. The PCO also reserves the right to obtain an OCI waiver and make an award when in the best interests of the United States. If the likely successful Offeror is rejected due to OCI and the PCO elects to not pursue a waiver, the Government reserves the right to award to the best value of remaining Offerors that are not rejected due to OCI. Notices to Offerors of OCIs and their responses thereto are not negotiations or discussions as those terms are used in FAR 15.306(d).

1.2.2 Offerors are advised that, should it be awarded a contract, the Government may incorporate into the final contract enhancing features included in the successful Offeror’s proposal deemed beneficial to the Government.

1.2.3 Attention is directed to FAR 52.215-1, which provides that the contract will be awarded to that responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and subfactors in the solicitation.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY/DEFINITIONS

2.1 The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

2.2 Factors/Subfactors and Their Relative Order of Importance

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

TABLE M-01 Evaluation Factors/Subfactors

EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1 (F1): Technical

Subfactor TS1: Pacific Collector Range Safety System (PCRSS)

Subfactor TS2: X-Band Transportable Radar-1 (XTR-1)

Subfactor TS3: Mission Execution and Display Distribution (MEDDS)

Subfactor TS4: Cyber Compliance

Factor 2 (F2): Management

Subfactor MS1: Recruitment, Retention, Surge Support

Subfactor MS2: Management Approach

Subfactor MS3: Transition Planning

Factor 3 (F3): Past Performance

Factor 4 (F4): Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP)

Factor 5 (F5): Cost/Price

2.3 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

The overall relative importance of the non-price evaluation factors is listed in descending order of importance.

Factor F1, Technical, is more important than Factor F2, Management. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Even though cost is a substantial factor in source selection, this competition may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror. However, the importance of cost as an award determinant will increase as the degree of equivalence among proposals associated with the other evaluation factors increases.

Each subfactor will receive a separate rating and will not be rolled up into a single factor rating. The Technical subfactors are of equal importance and the Management subfactors are of equal importance.

The Government will assign a color based on a combined technical/risk rating (see Table M-02) to each Technical and Management Subfactor and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the subfactor’s relative strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance and Information Management Control Plan (IMCP), and assign an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating. The Acceptable/Unacceptable rating will include the evaluation of the Past Performance submittals for relevancy, recency, and quality of work performed. A proposal rated as unacceptable for either past performance or for the IMCP, is ineligible for award.

2.4 Factor Rating Information

2.4.1 Technical and Management Factor Rating Information

For the evaluated subfactors under F1 Technical and F2 Management, the Government will use five (5) color codes, described in Table M-02, to assign a color rating that results from applying the evaluation criteria to each Offeror’s proposal. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining the overall technical and management ratings. The following definitions for color ratings will apply:

Table M-02 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

2.4.2 Proposal Risk Rating.

The Government’s assessment of technical/risk rating, includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the identification of weakness(es) and significant weaknesses, 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. The following definitions in Table M-03 are applicable to the terms specified in the color rating descriptions applicable to the Technical and Management subfactors.

TABLE M-03 Technical Risk Rating Method

2.4.3 Evaluation Definitions

The Technical evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and the proposal's strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies as defined in Table M-04 below.

TABLE M-04 Evaluation Definitions

EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

2.4.4 Factor 4, IMCP will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-05.

TABLE M-05. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

2.4.5. Factor 5, Past Performance Assessment Rating

Factor 5, Past Performance will be rated as acceptable/unacceptable in accordance with the table M-06.

3.0 FACTOR 1 (F1): TECHNICAL

3.1 Technical Subfactor 1 TS1: Pacific Collector Range Safety System (PCRSS)

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an approach and understanding to:

Mission Support:

a) Providing mission planning support to meet mission test requirements, which includes day-to-day mission coordination, implementation, documentation of mission requirements, analysis, creation of deployment plans, mission countdown checklists, concept of operations, and provision planning (PWS 3.3.1.1)

b) Performing on-site system preparation and activation, to include, testing, troubleshooting, and identifying and executing corrective actions to ensure PCRSS and the PC Weather System are mission-ready. (PWS 3.3.3.2)

c) Providing all required data products to the Missile Defense Data Center (MDDC). (PWS 3.3.1.10) Operations & Sustainment and Improvement & Modernization:

d) Providing operations and maintenance of the PCRSS, PCRSS Test Bed, and the Pacific Collector Weather System. Maintaining these systems to ensure they are in an operational status for MDA missions. Maintenance generally includes O&M support plans and recommendations, performing regularly scheduled inspections, operation, testing, and diagnosis, repair or replacement of parts or units. Providing a maintenance plan, maintenance results, and execution of maintenance plans of these systems at their current in-field deployed locations when maintenance/repair is required (PWS 3.4.1.3).

e) Performing engineering and re-engineering of instrumentation systems as a result of parts or technology obsolescence, new requirements, and new technologies. Suggesting new solutions to the Government regarding parts obsolescence. Re-designing or upgrading hardware, software, firmware, wiring, and interfaces, at any or all of the component, unit, or system levels. Providing associated technical drawings and documentation. Integrating and testing the affected systems for requirements compliance. (PWS 3.4.1.5) Configuration Management:

f) Establishing and maintaining a Configuration Management (CM) Program for DISC instrumentation systems. Developing a Contractor Configuration Management Plan IAW best practices and guidelines documented in EIA-649 and MIL-HDBK-61A, tailored to meet Government requirements to document the CM program. The CM program will consist of, at minimum, configuration management and planning configuration identification, configuration change management, configuration status accounting, and configuration verification and audits (PWS 3.4.1.8) Frequency/Spectrum Allocation:

g) Coordinating with regional frequency managers, local frequency authorization resources and organizations, or the State Department to assist in obtaining frequency assignments in broad open ocean areas, near the Continental United States (CONUS) and other US facilities, or foreign ports. Ensuring frequency allocation documentation is provided such that mission needs in areas of operation are met (PWS 3.4.1.7) Range Safety Certification:

h) Ensuring the PCRSS Range Safety Certification stays current and valid as the system goes through its operational life until PCRSS is decommissioned and properly disposed of (PWS 3.4.1.3.1)

3.2 Technical Subfactor 2 TS2: X-Band Transportable Radar-1 (XTR-1)

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an approach and understanding to:

Mission Support:

a) Providing mission planning support to meet mission test requirements, which includes day-to-day mission coordination, implementation, documentation of mission requirements, analysis, creation of deployment plans, mission countdown checklists, concept of operations, and provision planning (PWS 3.3.1.1)

b) Performing on-site system preparation and activation, to include, testing, troubleshooting, and identifying and executing corrective actions to ensure XTR-1 is mission-ready. (PWS 3.3.3.2)

c) Providing all required data products to the Missile Defense Data Center (MDDC). (PWS 3.3.1.10) Operations & Sustainment and Improvement & Modernization:

d) Providing operations and maintenance of the XTR-1. Maintaining these systems to ensure they are in an operational status for MDA missions. Maintenance generally includes O&M support plans and recommendations, performing regularly scheduled inspections, operation, testing, and diagnosis, repair or replacement of parts or units. Providing a maintenance plan, maintenance results, and execution of maintenance plans of these systems at their current in-field deployed locations when maintenance/repair is required (PWS 3.4.1.3).

e) Performing engineering and re-engineering of instrumentation systems as a result of parts or technology obsolescence, new requirements, and new technologies. Suggesting new solutions to the Government regarding parts obsolescence. Re-designing or upgrading hardware, software, firmware, wiring, and interfaces, at any or all of the component, unit, or system levels. Providing associated technical drawings and documentation. Integrating and testing the affected systems for requirements compliance. (PWS 3.4.1.5) Configuration Management:

f) Establishing and maintaining a Configuration Management (CM) Program for DISC instrumentation systems. Developing a Contractor Configuration Management Plan IAW best practices and guidelines documented in EIA-649 and MIL-HDBK-61A, tailored to meet Government requirements to document the CM program. The CM program will consist of, at minimum, configuration management and planning configuration identification, configuration change management, configuration status accounting, and configuration verification and audits (PWS 3.4.1.8) Frequency/Spectrum Allocation:

g) Coordinating with regional frequency managers, local frequency authorization resources and organizations, or the State Department to assist in obtaining frequency assignments in broad open ocean areas, near the Continental United States (CONUS) and other US facilities, or foreign ports. Ensuring frequency allocation documentation is provided such that mission needs in areas of operation are met (PWS 3.4.1.7) Range Safety Certification:

h) Ensuring the XTR-1 Range Safety Certification stays current and valid as the system goes through its operational life until PCRSS is decommissioned and properly disposed of (PWS 3.4.1.3.1)

3.3 Technical Subfactor 3 TS3: Mission Execution and Display Distribution (MEDDS)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach and understanding to meeting the MDA MEDDS requirements for System Readiness, Test Execution, and System Design, Development, and Integration.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and approach to:

a. Designing, developing, operating, and sustaining a new instrumentation system (MEDDS) with the capabilities required to collect, record, generate, and distribute test execution products, displays, and data.

b. Transitioning current MDA system requirements into MEDDS to ensure an efficient process and orderly transition with minimal disruption to test operations.

c. Providing support for MDA flight tests, ground tests, data collection events and operational testing. Managing system capacity, procedures, and configuration control to support multiple disparate same day test events.

d. Maintaining the MEDDS systems to ensure an operational status for MDA missions including O&S support plans and recommendations, performing regularly scheduled inspections, operation, testing, and diagnosis, repair or replacement of parts or units and performing maintenance of these MEDDS systems at their current in-field deployed locations.

e. Providing expertise in the areas of mission and test audio/video (situational awareness) and data (telemetry, radar, meta-data) distribution over local and wide area networks in a secure environment.

f. Ensuring that data transport systems are configured to receive and relay source data across the MEDDS enterprise to execution nodes, acquisition sites, and remote mission monitoring nodes.

g. Operating the Radio Frequency Telemetry Validation Unit (RFTVU) and Flight Termination System Test Set (FTSTS) for telemetry checkout and simulation recording activities required to support flight test vehicle Integration and Check Out (I&CO), and verification prior to the test execution phase of operations.

h. Planning, developing, operating, and distributing specialized missile defense test assurance products including time synchronized telemetry site playback data files.

i. Engineering and re-engineering of instrumentation systems as a result of parts or technology obsolescence, new requirements, and new technologies; Integrating and testing the affected systems for requirements compliance.

3.4 Technical Subfactor 4 TS4: Cyber Compliance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach and understanding to:

a) Developing and maintaining all of the documentation necessary to ensure acceptance by the MDA Authorizing Official (AO). The documentation must be prepared in accordance with DoD Risk Management Framework (RMF) policy located in DoDI 8500.1 in accordance with PWS 3.3.1. The required artifacts are to be included in each system’s Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service (eMASS) instance in accordance with PWS 3.3.4.

b) Securing DTR assets through implementation and understanding of Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs), Security Requirements Guides (SRGs), and other security best practices as described in PWS 3.3.2.

c) Ensuring an adequately staffed and qualified workforce to operate and maintain DTR assets in accordance with Cyber PWS section 3.3.6. This includes demonstrating that the workforce is provided ample training opportunities to maintain certifications and keep abreast of the latest cybersecurity best practices and available technologies

d) Ensuring a current Authorization to Operate (ATO) is in place for each system for all missions.

e) Ensuring configuration management procedures are in place to provide accurate logging, monitoring, and tracking within eMASS in accordance with RMF policy and DT ISSM guidance.

4.0 FACTOR 2 (F2): MANAGEMENT

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach and understanding to organize resources to most efficiently and effectively centrally manage DISC task orders performance and mitigate program risk.

4.1 Management Subfactor 1 (MS1): Recruitment, Retention, Surge Support

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach and understanding to:

a) Organizing, staffing, and allocating resources to meet all four DISC program wide task order PWS requirements to include surge support.

b) Recruiting and retaining a well-trained workforce to meet all four DISC program wide task order PWS requirements. The approach will be evaluated on how the Offeror will mitigate personnel turnover due to high operations tempo and frequent deployments in stressful environments.

c) Providing a DISC program-wide crossed-trained work force across all task orders for Task Order PWS efficiencies.

4.2 Management Subfactor 2 (MS2): Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach and understanding to:

a) Providing a DISC program wide plan for effective planning, allocating and controlling of resources.

b) Providing a DISC program wide approach to executing multiple task orders simultaneously while managing technical, performance, cost, and schedule risks.

c) Providing a program wide approach to efficiently manage human resources, processes, and inventory across common functions and requirements for all task orders.

4.3 Management Subfactor 3 (MS3): Transition Planning

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach and understanding to:

a) Describing the proposed transition process to transition resources and personnel to this contract required to perform the Task Order PWS requirements.

b) Describing the process to work with the incumbent contractor(s) to smoothly transition the DISC Program products / operations.

c) Providing a phased in realistic schedule, which includes key milestones with metrics to measure progress, to successfully transition all tasks within a designated transition period of no more than 90 days.

5.0 FACTOR 3 (F3): PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 The past performance evaluation assesses the Offeror’s ability to perform, including technical, cost/price, and schedule. Both the prime and the teammates/subcontractor’s past performance will be evaluated. The Government will assess the Offeror as ‘Acceptable/Unacceptable’ for their ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements as proposed while meeting budget, schedule, and performance requirements. The Government will conduct an assessment of the Offeror’s, team members’ and major subcontractors’ past performance. Team members and major subcontractors are defined in L-9..

5.2 The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing the aspects of the Offeror’s past performance focusing on the Offeror’s history of providing its customers with a quality product/service on contracts of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity that was delivered within budget and on schedule.

5.3 The Government will conduct a performance assessment on recent and relevant contracts based upon the quality of the Offeror’s Past Performance as well as that of its major subcontractors. Based on an evaluation of recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance information, the Past Performance Evaluation Team will determine and assign a performance confidence assessment at the factor level. If an Offeror does not have a record of past performance, the Offeror’s past performance confidence assessment will be considered neutral.

5.4 Recency

The Government will only consider recent work, which is defined as work performed during the five-year period preceding the date of this solicitation release. If any part of the performance falls within this five-year period, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

5.5 Relevancy Assessment

If the past performance information is recent, the relevancy assessment will be conducted on the Offeror’s past contracts. Relevancy as it pertains to past performance information is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and, a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. This area demonstrates the depth and breadth of relevant experience of the Offeror, including major or critical subcontractors and subsidiaries. Relevancy for the Offeror’s past contracts will be assigned in accordance with the definitions outlined in Table M-05. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine whether those efforts relate to the proposed effort. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, team members, and major subcontractors whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

TABLE M-06: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

5.6 Quality Assessment

5.6.1 For contracts determined to be recent and relevant, the past performance team will determine how well the contractor performed. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.

5.6.2 Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases; interviews with program managers, PCOs, and fee determining officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The past performance evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

5.6.3 When a recent and relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

5.7 Past Performance Rating

Based on an integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and quality of work, the Government will assign an overall Past Performance Rating as follows:

TABLE M-07: Past Performance Rating

An Offeror that received an “Unacceptable” rating for Past Performance is not eligible for award.

6.0 Factor 4 (F4): Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP)

The Government will evaluate the overall plan(s) of each offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP) to ensure it:

1. Addresses procedures for determining the need to transmit CUI.

2. Identifies internal mechanisms to determine the amount of CUI deemed necessary to transmit.

3. Addresses accountability procedures used to safeguard CUI.

4. Addresses procedures for monitoring subcontractor compliance with DFARS 7012.

5. Addresses procedures for reporting a cyber-incident as defined in DFARS 7012.

6. Addresses all NIST 800-171 r2 controls for its own applicable network in its SSP and POAM.

7. Controls identified in the POAM are resolved within one year after contract award, or a reasonable period of time agreed to by the Contracting Officer.

8. Address controls in place to enforce flow down of DFARS 7012 and prime contractor IMCP procedures to all applicable subcontractors and vendors.

An IMCP will be determined to be “Acceptable” if the plan addresses the policies/procedures identified above.

An Offeror that received an “Unacceptable” rating for the IMCP is not eligible for award.

7.0 Factor 5 (F5): Cost/Price

7.1 The Cost/Price Factor will not receive a color rating and the Government will only evaluate the Cost/Price Factor for technically acceptable proposals. The Government will evaluate each such proposal using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404 and DFARS 215.404. Information in the proposal and information from sources outside the proposal such as DCAA or DCMA may be considered under the Cost/Price factor in its evaluation.

7.2 Price Reasonableness

Since the Government anticipates adequate price competition, the Government expects to verify price reasonableness by comparing competitively proposed prices. Therefore, Offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist, the Government may require certified cost or pricing data (see FAR 15.403-4).

7.3 Cost Realism

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, a cost realism analysis will be performed. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements: (1) are realistic for the work to be performed, (2) reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and (3) are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical and management volumes.

The cost realism analysis will assess whether proposed hour quantities and skill mix, direct and indirect rates, and quantities and cost of material and other direct costs reflect a clear understanding of the requirement, are consistent with the Offeror’s technical and management approach, and are realistic for the work to be performed.

For cost type CLINs, the result of cost realism analysis is the probable cost. The probable cost is determined by adjusting each Offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. Therefore, the probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. Probable cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value.

7.4 Additional Costs to the Government

The amount of any additional costs to the Government that are necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach will be considered by the Government when making the best value determination. Additional costs to the Government do not include the GFP items listed in Section J of this RFP. These items are intended to be available to all Offerors and the use of these items will not be considered a discriminator during selection. However, if the offeror proposes the use of GFP items over and above the items listed in Section J, the offeror must calculate the rent that would otherwise be charged in accordance with FAR 52.245-9, Use and Charges even if the proposed GFP is available on a rent free basis. This amount must be not included in the proposed contract price but it will be included to the total evaluated price of the subject T.O.

Cost/Price Factor Evaluation Results

The total evaluated price will reflect the Offeror’s unique approach proposed for the initial Task Orders. The SSEB will provide the SSA with the Government’s total evaluated cost/price that will be the sum of the following:

· The Government’s probable cost plus the proposed maximum Award Fee amount for each of the Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) initial T.O.

· The Fixed Price as proposed for any Fixed Price initial T.O.

· Any additional cost to the Government.

image1.png