Section M.docx

Section M- N68335-26-R-1036 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 Basis for Award

1.1 The Government intends to make a fair opportunity selection and award one (1) TO to the Contractor representing the “best value” to the Government, price and other factors considered. “Best Value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (see FAR 2.101 Definitions). The best value evaluation is, in and of itself, a subjective assessment by the Government of the proposed solution that provides the optimal or most advantageous results to the Government. A comparative analysis of TO proposals considering all evaluation factors will be made to determine the best suited TO proposal offering the best value to the Government. The Government intends to award a TO to the responsible Contractor whose TO proposal conforms to the RFTOP’s requirements and is the most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors described further below.

1.2 The Government does not evaluate every requirement of the RFTOP under Section M of the RFTOP. The awarded Contractor: however, is required to comply with all requirements of the awarded TO.

1.3 Although the Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in TO proposals received, the failure to comply with terms and conditions of the RFTOP may adversely impact the Contractor’s evaluation results and could result in the Contractor being removed from consideration for award. Informalities and minor irregularities may be defined as clerical errors, minor template or format errors, or administrative clarifications.

1.4 If a fail rating is found under key personnel within the technical volume of the Contractor’s proposal, this will render their proposal unawardable.

2.0 Contractor Responsibility to Submit an Unambiguous Convincing Task Order Proposal

2.1 It is the Contractor’s responsibility to draft a logical, unambiguous proposal that contains all pertinent information in sufficient detail so that Government evaluators are able to meaningfully evaluate the Contractor’s proposed approach and cost/price.

2.2 Failure to follow the instructions detailed in Section L, Part A, Paragraph 2.0 TO Proposal Format and its subparagraphs may result in the TO proposal being deemed non-compliant, not evaluated, and considered ineligible for TO award.

3.0 Fair Opportunity

3.1 This RFTOP is conducted under the fair opportunity guidelines of FAR Subpart 16.507, which outlines the ordering procedures for orders issued under Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. This method does not use any aspects of FAR Subpart 15.2.

3.2 The use of this fair opportunity process does not obligate the Government to determine a competitive range, conduct discussions with any contractors, solicit responses or revisions thereto, or use any other source selection techniques associated with FAR Subpart 15.2. The identification of terminology similar to use in FAR Subpart 15.2, such as the Government’s questions and comments, and the Contractor’s answers and responses do not constitute discussions, clarifications, communications, or exchanges as used in FAR Subpart 15.2.

3.3 Under FAR 16.507, the Government is required to afford all Contractors under the multiple-award contract a fair opportunity to submit an offer and have that offer fairly considered. Accordingly, the Government will evaluate each Contractor’s TO proposal fairly, similarly, and in accordance with the RFTOP’s evaluation criteria. If the Government does not award on initial TO proposals, the Government will not establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals. Accordingly, the Contractor’s initial TO proposal must contain the Contractor’s best terms, conditions, and prices. Pre-award debriefings and pre-award notifications of exclusion prior to award are not required under FAR Subpart 16.5, and the Government will not provide them.

3.4 After the Government has afforded all eligible Contractors under the Seaport NxG multiple-award contract a fair opportunity to submit a TO proposal and have that TO proposal fairly considered, the Government’s selection official may take or direct one or more of the following actions:

(a) Award to the Contractor whose TO proposal submission conforms to the RFTOP’s requirements and offers the best value to the Government based upon the evaluation methodology defined in Section M of the RFTOP;

(b) Obtain written resolutions or response revisions from the Contractor whose initial TO proposal Submission may or may not conform to the RFTOP’s requirements and offers the best value to the Government based upon the evaluation methodology defined in Section M of the RFTOP and may be awardable under the RFTOP’s evaluation criteria. Written resolutions or response revisions may include but not be limited to easily-resolvable informalities, minor irregularities, or negative findings, the resolution of which do not remove evaluated positive findings or increase the Contractor’s total evaluated price of the TO;

(c) Obtain cost/price supporting information, without obtaining an increase in proposed cost/price, from the Contractor whose initial TO proposal submission conforms to the RFTOP’s requirements and offers the best value to the Government based upon the evaluation methodology defined in Section M of the RFTOP;

(d) Further consider only those Contractors who are most likely to provide the most advantageous revised responses to participate in one-on-one negotiations via interchanges and submit proposed fixes and/or revised responses. Interchanges are defined as, “fluid interaction(s) between the contracting officer and the Contractors that may address any aspect of the response/TO proposal and may or may not be documented in real time.” Interchanges may be conducted with one, some, none, or all of the Contractors who submitted TO proposals;

(e) Further consider only the Contractor determined to offer the best value to the Government based upon the evaluation methodology defined in Section M of the RFTOP, despite any negative findings that may exist with that response, where other Contractors do not have a reasonable prospect for award; and/or

(f) Not award to any Contractor.

3.5 Interchanges with a Contractor do not constitute “discussions” as defined in FAR Subpart 15.2, because FAR Subpart 15.2 does not apply to this TO competition, which will be conducted under FAR Subpart 16.507.

3.6 CAUTION: The Government anticipates selecting the successful Contractor from initial TO proposal submissions without requesting revised responses; however, nothing herein shall preclude interchanges with Contractors, and interchanges with one Contractor does not entitle other Contractors to interchanges as well. Contractors are strongly encouraged to submit their best technical, past performance, and cost/price in response to this RFTOP.

4.0 A Contractor’s Proposed Features as Performance Requirements

4.1 The Government may decide to write specific features of a Contractor’s proposed approach that provides benefit to the Government directly into the Statement of Work, Specification, or other section of the TO at any time prior to award.

4.2 If the Government’s selection official has selected an apparent successful Contractor, and the apparent successful Contractor does not agree to include any of the Contractor’s proposed features directly into the Statement of Work, Specification, or other section of the TO prior to award, the Government will revise the selection official’s decision record. This may or may not change the TO selection decision, depending upon the proposed feature’s benefit(s) that will no longer be reflected in the selection official’s decision record.

5.0 Evaluation Factors and Methodology for Award

5.1 The Government will evaluate TO proposals using the following factors:

1. Technical Sub factors:

a. Understanding of the Work/Statement of Work (SOW) Approach

b. Key Personnel Resumes

2. Past Performance

3. Cost/Price

4. Small Business (if applicable)

5. Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC)

5.2 The evaluation will consider Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price factors listed above in descending order of importance. Understanding of the Work/SOW Approach and Key Personnel Resumes, are sub factors of the Technical Factor; they are of equal importance. In evaluating the technical response, the two sub factors are separately rated.

Technical is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price. Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

Small Business is not part of the tradeoff and TO proposals must receive an “acceptable” rating to be eligible for award. Additionally, CMMC is not a part of the tradeoff, and the apparently successful offeror must possess the required CMMC Level 1 Self-Assessment prior to award. Compliance is a material condition of award.

5.3 The Government will perform a Technical/Past Performance/Cost/Price tradeoff analysis to select the TO proposal that provides the “best value” as defined in Section M, Part A, Paragraph 1.1 above. The Contractor is advised that the lowest priced TO proposal meeting the RFTOP requirements may not be selected for a TO award if award to a higher priced Contractor is determined to be more advantageous and/or beneficial to the Government provided that the perceived advantages and/or benefits merit the additional cost/price.

5.4 The Government intends to strictly enforce all of the RFTOP submission requirements outlined in Section L. Any information submitted shall be in accordance with the instructions in Section L of this RFTOP.

CAUTION: Failure to comply with any of the requirements outlined in Section L may result in a Contractor’s TO proposal being determined as non-conforming to the RFTOP and rejected with no further consideration or evaluation of the Technical, Past Performance, and/or Cost/Price response.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 Technical Evaluation Methodology

1.1 The Contractor’s Technical Responses will be evaluated in terms of quality, depth, relevance of information presented in response to this RFTOP, and risk associated with the Contractor’s approach. Additionally, the contractor’s technical responses will be based on its adherence to the instructions identified in Section L and on the basis of evaluation listed herein.

1.2 Positive and Negative Findings will be used in the evaluation of the Contractor’s Technical response. Table 1 below provides the definitions for what is considered to be a positive and negative finding.

Table 1

Negative Finding Findings in the evaluation that unfavorably impact the demonstrated understanding of the requirements, adequacy of approach, or associated risk to performance.

1.2.1 If the Government determines the Contractor’s Technical Response neither favorably nor unfavorably impact the demonstrated understanding of the requirements, adequacy of approach, or associated risk to performance, no positive or negative finding(s) will be noted.

1.2.2 The Government will assign one of the Technical Factor ratings below in Table 2 to the Contractor’s Technical Factor based upon the Government’s subjective assessment of each Contractor’s response including any evaluated positive and negative findings. However, ratings are merely guides to intelligent decision making. The basis for award will be made considering the totality of the evaluation and the relative order of importance as provided above.

Table 2- Technical Factor Ratings

1.3 Technical Sub factors Basis of Evaluation

1.3.1 Understanding of the Work/ SOW Approach

1.3.1.1 The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s understanding of the work based on the information provided as required by Section L of this RFTOP and in accordance with Table 2- Technical Factor Ratings. The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s technical approach to ensure a complete understanding of the services to be performed and ensure the methodology successfully meets or exceeds the requirements of the TO SOW sections listed in Section L, Part B, Paragraph 1.1.

1.3.2 Key Personnel Resume Pass/Fail Evaluation

1.3.2.1 Pass or Fail ratings will be used in the evaluation of the Contractor’s Key Personnel Resumes. Table 3 below provides the definitions for what is considered to be a pass or fail evaluation.

Table 3

1.3.2.2 Prior to evaluating any other portion of the Contractor’s TO proposal, the Government will first evaluate each Contractor’s Key Personnel Resumes using the Pass/Fail criterion stated below in paragraphs Section M, Part B, Paragraphs 1.3.2.4-1.3.2.7 and will assign a Pass or Fail evaluation for each criterion. A failure to meet the minimum requirements on any single Pass/Fail criterion for any Key Personnel Resume submitted may make the TO proposal ineligible for award, with no further evaluation of the technical, past performance, and/or cost response conducted by the Government.

1.3.2.3 If all of the Contractor’s proposed key personnel resumes pass based on the above Pass/Fail criterion (Section M, Part B, Paragraphs 1.3.2.4-1.3.2.7); the Government will evaluate each resume for the proposed Key Personnel’s ability to fully and professionally accomplish the requirements stated herein, document Positive Findings (defined above in Section M, Part B, Paragraph 1.3.2.1 Table 3) if applicable, and use the key personnel resumes when performing the Government’s tradeoff analysis.

The Government will continue to evaluate the remaining technical, past performance, cost/price response for each Contractor if all of the Key Personnel Resumes are assigned a Pass evaluation on all criterion stated below in Section M, Part B, Paragraphs 1.3.2.4-1.3.2.7.

1.3.2.4 The Government will assign a Fail evaluation to any submission that does not provide a Letter of Commitment containing the specified information in Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3.2.3 (Letter of Commitment shall be submitted via the Cost/Price volume) for each proposed Key Personnel that are not current employees. For current proposed employees, Contractor’s shall provide current payroll verification.

1.3.2.5 The Government will assign a Fail evaluation to any submission that does not clearly demonstrate that each of the proposed Key Personnel meet the Required Education (College Degree and Degree Major) and Required Experience or allowable substitution associated with each Key Personnel labor category (listed in Section 3.4 and 3.5 of the SOW).

1.3.2.6 The Government will assign a Fail rating to any submission that does not clearly demonstrate that each Key Personnel resume submitted is consistent with the named key personnel proposed within the Attachment P1 – Workforce Qualifications for the base year and all subsequent option years (option years 1-4).

CAUTION: A Contractor’s response that states TBD, or omits any Key Personnel positions, or includes more resumes than required, or does not clearly demonstrate how their team of Key Personnel meet all required minimum qualifications outlined in the Section 3.4 and 3.5 of the SOW may be considered non-conforming to the RFTOP and unawardable. No further evaluation of the Technical, Past Performance, and/or Cost/Price response will be conducted by the Government.

1.3.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Disclosure and Mitigation Plan

1.3.3.1 The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s, including Subcontractor’s, response to NAVAIR Clauses KTXT.209-9511 and LTXT.209-9513 to assess whether or not an actual or potential OCI exists as defined in FAR subpart 9.5. If an actual or potential OCI is identified that cannot be feasibly mitigated, avoided or resolved in accordance with FAR subpart 9.5, the Contractor may be ineligible for TO award.

2.0 Past Performance Evaluation Methodology

2.1 There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Contractor’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract reference has been performed within five (5) years of the RFTOP release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

2.2 The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess how relevant the past performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this RFTOP. When evaluating relevancy, which includes similarity of scope, complexity, and magnitude of the past performance to the current RFTOP, the Government will consider performance similar to SOW paragraphs 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, and respective subparagraphs.

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

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

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

c) Controlling contract cost;

d) Managing the contracted effort;

e) Regulatory compliance, and

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

2.4 A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Contractor’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

2.5 Past Performance Relevancy Definitions

2.5.1 More relevant past performance 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.

2.5.2 Past Performance Relevancy Definitions are provided in Table 4 below:

Table 4- PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS

2.6 Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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

2.6.2 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Contractor will successfully perform the RFTOP’s requirements based on the Contractor’s overall record of quality of performance on recent relevant past performance record(s). The ratings and definitions are provided below in Table 5:

Table 5- Past performance Confidence Assessment Rating

3.0 Cost/Price Evaluation Methodology

3.1 The Contractor shall ensure all cost/price information is current, accurate, and complete in accordance with Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3.0.

3.2 In evaluating the cost portion of each TO proposal, cost realism of the Contractor's proposed cost will be considered. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Contractor’s proposed cost to determine whether the estimated proposed cost is realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Contractor’s technical response.

3.3. Responses will be evaluated to assess for cost realism and price reasonableness using the cost/price analysis methods of FAR Subpart 15.4.

3.4 The evaluation will be based on an analysis of the realism and completeness of the cost data, the traceability of the cost to the Contractor’s capability data and submitted allocation of man-hours and labor mix for all periods of performance.

3.5 In conducting the cost realism analysis to determine the Most Probable Cost (MPC) for each Contractor’s TO proposal, the following considerations apply:

3.5.1 Contractors are forewarned, if there are discrepancies among cost sections/responses/attachments, the higher value of any individual cost element will prevail. The Government will not make any downward adjustments. Furthermore, such discrepancies may impact the realism and reasonableness assessment of the Contractor’s TO proposal or its eligibility for award.

3.5.2 The Government will review the Contractor’s proposed labor categories and hour allocation for all periods of performance to compare them to the Government specified labor categories and hour allocation stated in Section L, Part B, Paragraph 3.3.1.

3.5.3 In conducting its cost realism evaluation of proposed prospective hires, the Government will utilize the May 2024 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) wage data by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA, correlated to each labor category’s SOC Codes. The Government is using data at the 10th percentile for Junior labor categories, data at the 25th percentile for Journeyman labor categories, and data at the 75th percentile for Senior labor categories. The Government applied a 3.9% escalation rate annually to the 2024 BLS wage data to ensure the data is realistic based on the anticipated PoP start date of this TO. The escalated BLS wage data is the direct labor rates stated within the "Minimum Direct Labor Rates” worksheet of the P4. The Government will utilize these stated rates in conducting its cost realism analysis and determining the Government’s MPC. The Government will evaluate proposed direct labor rates for prospective hires to confirm that the proposed rates are equal to or greater than the direct labor rates stated within the “Minimum Direct Labor Rates” tab. The Government will make an upward adjustment to the proposed prospective hire rate if the proposed rate is less than the corresponding labor category minimum stated direct labor rate. The upward adjustment will be so that the proposed perspective hire rate equals the minimum direct labor rate stated for the corresponding labor category. The Government will not make downward adjustments.

3.5.3.1 CAUTION: Contractors, including Subcontractors, are advised that proposed direct labor rate(s) for a prospective hire(s) that is/are lower than the minimum rate set forth in the “Minimum Direct Labor Rates” worksheet within the P4 may result in a determination that the proposed rate(s) are unrealistic and the Government will make an upward adjustment during its cost realism analysis to determine the Most Probable Cost. The Government will not make any downward adjustments. As noted in Section M, Part B, Paragraph 3.5.7 below “The higher of the MPC or proposed cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the “best value”.

3.5.4 In conducting its cost realism evaluation of proposed current employees, the Government will utilize the payroll verification provided within the cost/price narrative response and may apply escalation annually to ensure the proposed rate is realistic based on the Contractor’s application of escalation practices and the anticipated Period of Performance start date of this TO. The Government may make an upward adjustment to the proposed current employee rate if the proposed current employee rate is less than the corresponding payroll and/or does not account for escalation that would occur. The upward adjustment would be to payroll verified rate adjusted to account for the application of escalation. The Government will not make downward adjustments.

In conducting its cost realism evaluation of contingent hires, the Offeror shall provide contingent offer letters outlining salary information for contingent hire employees. For any prospective hires for any non-key personnel, provide information to substantiate the rates proposed. All contingent hires shall have a letter of intent submitted under the Cost Volume. The letter of intent is a separate written agreement signed by the potential employee(s) to work for the Offeror effective at TO award. Any proposed consultants shall have a consultant agreement substantiating the rates proposed. If a composite rate or other pricing methodology (e.g. cost estimating relationships) is utilized, the Offeror shall demonstrate how those rates were developed.

Subcontractors and team members shall provide this information either separately or included in the Offeror’s submission of this document. For clarification, a “contingent hire” is an individual who has committed, under a signed letter of commitment, to being employed by the Contractor with a stated salary, if the Contractor is awarded the TO. A “prospective hire” is an individual that the Contractor has committed to hiring if the Contractor is awarded the contract whose identity may not be known until after TO award.

3.5.5 CAUTION: Contractors are forewarned, if there is a discrepancy between the Subcontractor’s fully burdened rates in the Prime Contractor’s P4 and the calculated fully burdened rates based on the Subcontractor’s P4, the higher of the two fully burdened rates will be utilized for cost realism in establishing the Government’s MPC.

3.5.6 Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to, DCAA recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as well as Contractor specific historical indirect and escalation rate information, BLS Wage Data, and BLS Economic Cost Index (ECI) information, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC to be incurred in the performance of this TO.

3.5.6.1 CAUTION: Contractors, including Subcontractors, are advised that failure to provide clear and convincing rationale to support changing the escalation factor to less than 3.9% in the P4 may result in a determination that the proposed escalation rate(s) are unrealistic. As a result, the Contractor may not be eligible for TO award and/or the Government may upward adjust the Contractor’s proposed escalation rate to 3.9%.

3.5.6.2 CAUTION: Contractors, including Subcontractors, are advised that failure to provide clear and convincing rational to support proposing a lower indirect rate than the most recent historical actual indirect rate information provided within the price/cost narrative may result in a determination that the rate(s) are unrealistic and the Contractor may not be eligible for TO award. The Government defines a “lower indirect rate” as a proposed indirect rate that is more than ten (10) percentage less (e.g. Contractor’s historical indirect rate is 4.0% then the proposed indirect rate is expected to be 3.6% or greater) than the most recent historical actual indirect rate information.

3.5.7 If submitted costs are considered to be unrealistic, including unrealistic labor and indirect rates, the Contractor’s submitted costs may be adjusted upward by the Government to reflect more realistic costs. No downward adjustments will be made. Based on such analysis, an evaluated cost for the Contractor will be calculated to reflect the Government’s estimate of the Contractor’s MPC. MPC to the Government is a Contractor’s total cost, including profit/fee, and any additional adjustments the Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic for all periods. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost. The higher of the MPC or proposed cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the “best value”. TO awarded value, however, will be based upon the successful Contractor’s proposed costs and fee.

3.5.8 In addition, the Government will also adjust the contractor’s total proposed cost to reflect the incorporation of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The added cost for the potential extension up to 6 months, pursuant to FAR 52.217-8, will be based upon the contractor’s proposed cost and fee, adjusted for realism, for the last contract TO option extended by six months. Based on such analysis, an evaluated cost for the offeror will be calculated to reflect the Government's estimate of the offeror's MPC.

3.5.9 Total Evaluated Price: The total evaluated price will be the sum of the Base Period Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN(s)) MPC plus the sum of the MPC of all Option Period CLIN(s) including costs associated with FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.

3.6 Adequate price competition is anticipated. If, after receipt of a TO proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-2(b) apply, the Contractor may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-3(c)-.

3.6.1 In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), various price analysis techniques and procedures will be employed to ensure the prices being proposed for this requirement are fair and reasonable. To assist in the overall determination of price reasonableness, as part of its evaluation, the Government will identify all instances of fully burdened labor rates proposed where employees' annual fully burdened salary exceeds $420K. The fully burdened labor rate for any proposed Subcontractor labor will be calculated inclusive of all pass-through costs being applied by the prime. This applies to fully burdened Subcontractor employees' salaries inclusive of the prime contractor's pass-through burden. Any fully burdened labor rate/annual salary exceeding $420K may result in a determination that the rate(s) are not fair and reasonable and the Contractor may not be eligible for TO award without clear and convincing rationale to support such rate(s)/salary.

3.7 The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s Total Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

3.8 The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s Limitations on Subcontracting in accordance with FAR 52.219-14. Contractors who do not adhere to these limitations may not be eligible for TO award.

3.9 Unrealistically low costs or inconsistencies between the technical and cost proposals may be assessed as proposal risk and could be considered weaknesses under the technical factor. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between the technical proposal and cost proposal should be explained in the narrative section of the cost/price proposal.

4.0. Small Business

1. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s approach and understanding of small business objectives through:

a. Listing small business entities under section 3 of the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) and have an active registration in SAM that is current, accurate, and complete or provide a written representation for each small business entity’s status applicable to the size standard of the NAICS assigned by the Offeror.

The Government will incorporate the successful Offeror’s SBPCD and subcontracting plan, as applicable, into the contract as Section J attachments.

Small Business Ratings: The Small Business Rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s approach to meeting Small Business requirements for the solicitation.

A Small Business rating of “acceptable” is required for a proposal to be eligible for award and is not part of the tradeoff process.

5.0 Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC)

Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) requirements, as outlined in DFARS 252.204-7025 and further detailed in Section L, is a material condition of award and will be determined as part of the Offeror's responsibility.

The Government will review the information provided in the Offeror's proposal, as requested in Section L, to ensure that it includes either:

1. A statement or documentation demonstrating a valid CMMC Level 1 Self-Assessment status or higher.

1. If not currently certified at the time of proposal submission, the Offeror provided an explanation of the process that will be followed to ensure a valid CMMC Level 1 Self-Assessment or higher certification is obtained prior to award.

For the apparently successful Offeror, the Government will verify that a valid CMMC Level 1 Self-Assessment or higher has been achieved prior to contract award. This verification will be conducted through the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS).

Failure to possess the required CMMC Level 1 Self-Assessment or higher prior to contract award will render the Offeror ineligible for award, as it constitutes a failure to meet a material condition of award.

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.202(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).