Section M.pdf

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FA8903-27-R-0014

21 October 2026

Privatization Management Programs (PMP) for Housing, Enhanced Use Leasing, Lodging, and Utility Privatization (HELU) Management

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value source selection using the Subjective Trade-off process in accordance with Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO) 15.2, Evaluation and Award, as supplemented by the Revolutionary Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (R-DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Contracting Compass (DAF). These regulations are available electronically at the RFO https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul. The Government will select the best overall proposal(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the RFO, as supplemented, whose proposal conformed to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of the solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Procuring Contracting Officer seeks to award to an Offeror who gives the Air

Force (AF) 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 overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The

SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the trade-off process, by its nature, is subjective;

and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government anticipates awarding one single Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for all HEU business areas (TAB A – Housing Privatization (HP), TAB B - Use Enhanced Lease (EUL), TAB C – Transient Housing Privatization Initiative (THPI), and TAB D - Utilities Privatization (UP)).

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal IAW the area(s) of business proposed (TAB A -

HP, TAB B – EUL, TAB C – THPI, and TAB D - UP). Each TAB will be independently evaluated to determine the overall best value. However, Offerors MUST submit a complete proposal covering ALL four TABs (TAB A – HP, TAB B – EUL, TAB C – THPI, and TAB D – UP). Submitting a proposal for fewer than all four TABs shall render the proposal non-conforming and result in immediate rejection without technical evaluation.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul

Therefore, each Offeror will have the opportunity to provide an offer for all of the services designated on the TABs. The TABs or services for the entire requirement are as follows:

TAB A = AIR FORCE HOUSING PRIVATIZATION (HP) MANAGEMENT

TAB B = ENHANCED USE LEASE (EUL), ENERGY ASSURANCE LEASE-EASEMENT AND

VALUE BASED TRANSACTION

TAB C = AIR FORCE TRANSIENT HOUSING PRIVATIZATION INITIATIVE (THPI)

TAB D = AIR FORCE UTILITLIES PRIVATIZATION (UP) MANAGEMENT

However, vendors will only be considered if they proposed for the entire requirement. For the award, best value will be determined from technical results, past performance outcomes, and if prices fall within the competitive range with technical and past performance receiving a greater value.

1.2 Scope Elasticity & Legislative Oversight Flexibility

The baseline Performance Work Statement (PWS) and contract ceiling ($149M) explicitly accommodate variable performance volumes required to satisfy evolving statutory, legislative, and National Defense

Authorization Act (NDAA) mandates across all four PMP-HELU business areas (e.g., CONUS/OCONUS housing oversight, utility resilience assessments). Fluctuations in task order ordering volumes resulting from Congressional mandates fall fully within the evaluated scope of competition and do not constitute out-of-scope contract modifications or require re-evaluation of the basic acquisition strategy.

The scope of this ID/IQ contract explicitly encompasses full-spectrum advisory, asset management, and technical inspection services required to fulfill statutory, legislative, and National Defense Authorization

Act (NDAA) mandates across all four PMP-HELU business areas (e.g., OCONUS/CONUS housing inspections, utility resilience audits). Task orders issued to meet fluctuating statutory inspection volume or Congressional mandates within the $149M ceiling fall fully within the original scope of competition and do not constitute out-of-scope actions or require separate justification and approval under RFO Part

6."

1.3 Discussions

The Government anticipates contract award without negotiations; however, the Government does reserve the right to conduct negotiations if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold negotiations. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final

Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. For the purposes of making the award decision without negotiations, all initial proposals that are rated technically

Unacceptable on any factor or sub-factor will be unawardable. Proposals that are rated Unacceptable on any factor or sub-factor, after negotiations, will be unawardable. If negotiations are required, the

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will hold negotiations with all Offerors regarding the competitive range and FPRs will be requested. If, after negotiations have begun, the PCO determines that an Offeror's proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, then that proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of exclusion from the competitive range will be provided to unsuccessful Offerors.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

The relative importance of each factor and sub-factor is as follows: Technical/Technical Risk, 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 last in importance. Sub-factor 1.1 is the sole trade-off factor. Within the Sub-factor, the Technical and Management Approach are of equal importance. Subfactors 1.2 and 1.3 will not be a part of the trade-off determination and will receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating. IAW RFO 15.104(d), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. This process permits subjective trade-offs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept proposals other than the lowest priced. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for subjective trade-offs must be documented in the file in accordance with RFO 15.406.

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

Selection shall be made on a “Subjective Tradeoff” basis. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical

Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical and Management Approach (Trade-off)

Sub-factor 1.2 – Transition Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Sub-factor 1.3 – Small Business Participation Commitment (SBPC)

(Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Note: Assessment of technical/technical risk associated with approach/plan is applicable to subfactors 1.1.

Performance or capabilities proposed above mandatory minimums may be incorporated into the contract, if cited as a strength. Subfactors 1.2 and 1.3 will not be part of the trade-off and will receive an acceptable/unacceptable rating.

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

(b) Technical Factor (Factor 1.1): The Technical and Management Approach evaluation for sub-factor 1.1 will provide for two distinct but related assessments for Technical and Technical

Risk. The rating for these approaches have equal impact and do not roll up into an overall technical factor rating.

(1) Technical Rating: The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the

Offeror’s solution to meet the Government’s requirement. Technical sub-factor 1.1 only will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A -

Technical Ratings, excerpted below. The ratings focus on the meets, strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal. The color ratings depict how well the Offeror’s proposal meets or exceeds the Technical subfactor requirements as captured in the PWS. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

DoD Table 2A – Technical Ratings

Color

Rating

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and deep understanding of the requirements, contains significant multiple strengths, and these strengths carriers a low risk of unsuccessful performance.

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

Green Satisfactory/ Acceptable

Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach or full understanding of adequately addressing key elements of the requirement addressing potential problems or weaknesses and thus carries a high risk of being unsuccessful.

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

The distinction between an Outstanding and a Good rating often hinges on the level of risk, the degree of automation, and the added value (exceeding requirements) that the contractor provides. Basically, an outstanding rating would be recognized for a proactive innovation rather than a reactive compliance.

Outstanding" rating signifies a proposal that far exceeds baseline requirements with multiple strengths and low risk, while a "Good" rating meets requirements with some strengths and little risk.

(2) Technical Risk Rating: Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical Sub-factor 1.1 will receive one of the Technical

Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B - Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating will consider the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the Offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is, or is not, manageable.

DOD Table 2B – 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.

(3) Technical Rating/Acceptable or Unacceptable (Subfactor 1.2)

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Transition Plan proposal will satisfy the

Government’s minimum requirements. Technical Subfactor for 1.2 will receive one of the ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3, excerpted below.

DoD Table 3 – Technical Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal exceeds or meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

An Acceptable" rating requires 100% Day-1 Key Personnel onboarding, a zero-data-loss transition schedule with database migration validation protocols and fully executed NDAs/OCI mitigations prior to database access.

(4) Small Business Participation Commitment Rating/Acceptable or Unacceptable

(Subfactor 1.3)

The requirement to submit an SBPCD applies regardless of business size or whether the Offeror is required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Offerors are advised that the proposed SBPCD, and Small Business

Subcontracting Plan, if applicable, will become attachments to any award resulting from this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's demonstrated commitment to small business participation based on the information provided in the SBPCD at the time of proposal submission.

(a) Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). The Government will evaluate whether the

Offeror's SBPCD demonstrates a meaningful commitment to small business participation and satisfies the following requirements:

(b) The Offeror submitted a completed SBPCD using the Government provided template and completed all required sections.

(c) The Offeror identified all small business concerns proposed to participate in contract performance and identified the applicable socioeconomic designation(s), if any, for each concern.

(d) For Offerors required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, the SBPCD shall be consistent with the proposed socioeconomic goals reflected in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. For example, proposing subcontracting goals for Women Owned Small Businesses (WOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small

Businesses (SDVOSB), Veteran Owned Small Businesses (VOSB), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB), or

Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Businesses on the Small Business Subcontracting Plan while failing to identify any WOSB, SDVOSB, VOSB, SDB, or HUBZone concerns, respectively, in the SBPCD may result in an Unacceptable rating.

(e) General statements indicating that subcontractors, teammates, joint venture partners, or other small business concerns will be identified, negotiated, or established after contract award do not demonstrate a commitment to small business participation. Failure to identify proposed small business participants and their anticipated role in contract performance may result in an Unacceptable rating.

(f) The Offeror identified the supplies and/or services provided by each proposed small business concern and described the nature of each proposed business commitment.

(g) The Offeror's SBPCD will be evaluated using the following ratings:

DoD Table 4

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal indicates an exceptional or adequate approach and understanding of achieving small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not adequately indicate it can meet small business objectives.

An Acceptable" rating requires binding, signed Teaming Agreements for all named small business subcontractors specifying exact PWS task areas and contract percentages.

The following are definitions of words that will be used to determine the final outcomes for

Subfactors 1.1 – 1.3 for the Technical Evaluation in Factor 1:

Deficiency – 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 unacceptable contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Significant Weakness – A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Weakness – A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Meets – Proposal meets requirements and indicates and antiquate approached and understanding of the requirements.

Strength – 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. Simply restating, paraphrasing, or agreeing to comply with PWS requirements or commercial norms DOES NOT constitute a Strength. Strengths require a proven, quantifiable capability that directly reduces AF cost, accelerates delivery, or minimizes oversight burden.

2.1 Factor 1: Technical Objectives.

2.1.1 Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical and Management Approach (trade-off) (Applies to all four (4)

TABs)– This subfactor is met when the Offeror proposes a sound approach for executing processes and procedures to accomplish the technical activities outlined in Services Summary of Section Seven (7) of the PWS, while minimizing the need for Government assistance during the various data collection phases.

The purpose is to consolidate technical methodology for asset management, acquisition support, VBTs, financial modeling, real-time data interface, and portfolio document lifecycle management.

This approach is met when the Offeror provides a sound approach to the tasks reflected in the Services

Summary in Section 7 of the PWS.

2.1.2 Sub-factor 1.2 – Transition Plan (acceptable/unacceptable) (Applies to TABs) – This subfactor is met when the when the Offeror proposes a sound approach to:

(a) Implement a secure solution for current and future data management.

(b) Transition current data, without data loss, onto the proposed secure solution.

(c) Ensure full functionality of the secure solution and access by all required users at the start of the first task order period of performance.

(d) Evaluates phase-in readiness, zero-data-loss migration, and Day-1 key personnel onboarding.

2.1.3 Sub-factor 1.3 – Small Business Participation Commitment (acceptable/unacceptable)

(Applies to TABs) – This subfactor shall describe the Offeror’s Small Business Participation

Commitment:

The Contracting Officer will evaluate in accordance with R-DFARS 215.304 and PGI 215.304 (c)(i)(A), the extent to which Offerors identify and commit to small businesses in performance of the contract. The requirements of the factor/subfactor is met when the proposal demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of a valid corporate commitment in providing small business participation performance under the contract.

This would mean evaluating corporate commitment, binding subcontracts/LOIs, and socio-economic target alignment per R-DFARS 215.304.

2.2 Factor 2: Past Performance Objectives.

(a) The Past Performance Evaluation Team will assess each Offeror’s present/past performance for recency, relevancy, and quality, which will allow the team to assign an integrated performance assessment rating. The team will consider Offeror-provided information as well as information obtained from Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), CPARS, Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and Past Performance Questionnaires

(PPQs). The Past Performance Evaluation Team will determine their level of confidence in each

Offeror's ability to perform as proposed. The Performance Confidence Assessment rating is at the factor level.

(b) 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 must have been performed within the past five

(5) years from the date of release of the solicitation.

For present or ongoing efforts, the Offeror must have been performing the effort for at least twelve

(12) months from the date of issuance of the solicitation.

(c) 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 relate to the solicitation requirements. Consideration will be given to program scope, similarity, complexity, diversity of tasks and type of effort. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and Team Members. In determining relevancy for individual contracts provided, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, proposed by the Offeror, and Team

Member, including Subcontractors, whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. PPQs, Attachment L-5, and information obtained from the proposal and other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing relevant contracts:

DoD Table 5

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involves essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involves similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involves some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

Present/past performance efforts involves little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(d) Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. 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 the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance were demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent and relevant efforts:

- Exceptional - During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

- Very Good - During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeds (or exceeds) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

- Satisfactory - During the contract period, contractor performance meets (or meets) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

- Marginal - During the contract period, contractor performance does not meet (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

- Unsatisfactory - During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failing) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered and corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

- Not Applicable - Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

(e) Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevance and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Offerors without a record of recent/ relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown

Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More recent and relevant performance has a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the Performance Confidence

Assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5, excerpted below:

DoD Table 6 – Performance Confidence Assessment

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has high expectations 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.

2.3 Factor 3: Price.

Price will be a consideration in the selection decision and will be evaluated for reasonableness, Professional Compensation Plan realism, balance and completeness. The following applies to the Price evaluation:

(a) Reasonableness

Price will be evaluated for reasonableness using the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) which will be the TABs

Burdened Rates (FBRs) respectively, proposed in Attachment L-11 - Fully Burdened Hourly Labor Rates

Table in accordance with one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described under RFO 15.404-1, which includes, but is not limited to, price analysis. Adequate price competition in accordance with RFO

15.403-1(c)(1)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness. Certified cost or pricing data are not required per RFO 15.403-1(b)(1) and/or RFO 15.403-1(b)(3). However, this requirement supports negotiations for products and services valued at $10 million or more, regardless of whether cost and pricing data requires certification. Therefore, contracting officers must have access to actual cost information at both the prime and supplier levels for these contract actions (except for Commercial Off-the-Shelf items) to support the determination of fair and reasonable pricing. In the event adequate price competition is not obtained, pricing data other than certified cost or pricing data will be required from the

Offeror to permit a determination by the Contracting Officer that the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

(b) Pricing:

The proposal competitive range will consider pricing. If a proposed FBR falls outside the adjusted pricing range, then the pricing proposal for the specific FBR would not be considered fair and reasonable and could place the entire pricing proposal outside the competitive range depending on the outcome of the other proposed FBRs. To determine the pricing range, formulated Fair Market Pricing Ranges (FMPRs) will be develop for each of the SME positions proposed that meet the criteria of the PWS regarding the

Period of Performance (PoP) by including all the proposed pricing to determine an acceptable Fair Market

Pricing Range (FMPR) for each labor position. Each proposed FBR will be added and divided by total number of Offerors to determine a midpoint price (mean). A standard deviation is then applied to the results from the proposed population to create the pricing range from the mean value. A 3.6% CPI/ECI current escalation factor will be applied to the range to arrive at an adjusted range. This is due to account for any future inflationary factors. Since it is not known what the future inflationary factors will be in the future period up to the time award is determined. If either outcome of the benchmarks to include the current accepted contract pricing or the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) fall outside the range, or the standard deviation is considered unrealistic then the range would not be utilized in determining fair and reasonable pricing. If this were to occur, the proposed pricing would then be compared with the benchmarks to determine reasonableness for the FBR.

Price will not be scored or rated. By applying RFO 15.404-1(b), evaluation of price will be performed by comparing the proposed FBRs with the FMPRs. If the FBRs fall outside the FMPRs, or the FBRs are considered unbalanced, then the rates would not be considered fair and reasonable. Through these techniques the Government will determine whether the proposed prices are complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced.

(c) Balanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze the offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to the FBR. The Professional Plan Labor Model proposed in Attachment L-12 will allow the Government to analyze the breakdown of the Offeror(s)

FBRs to determine this. Per RFO 52.215-1(f) (8), the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the elements comprising the FBRs prices are significantly over and understated.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an overall acceptable FBR, the components of one or more items in the FBR is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed FBR prices from year to year, including option years, such they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. Therefore, this analysis would be evaluating cost factors such as the base labor rate, fringe benefit, indirect, and profit rates for reasonableness. Hence, even if the proposed FBR fits within the FMPR; the proposed FBR could still be considered unreasonable if the Contracting Officer determines there is a lack of balance on how the FBR was developed which poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(d) Completeness

A proposal is complete when all pricing data required under Section L of the RFP is provided in the format prescribed.

(e) RFO 52.217-8 – Option to Extend Services (Nov 1999)

The Government will apply current year rates if RFO 52.217-8 is exercised to calculate the total price for the extension of services.

2.4 Foreign Contractors and Subcontractors.

Foreign contractors and subcontractors will not be permitted to participate in the acquisition.

M003 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

3.0 PRIME CONTRACTOR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: Defense Contract Management

Agency (DCMA) will be requested to perform a Financial Capability Risk Assessment for the Prime.

The Government will use the results of the Financial Capability Risk Assessment to determine financial responsibility. Failure to meet financial responsibility requirements will render the Offeror’s proposal not awardable.

M004 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

4.0 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 or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the

Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

ACRONYMS

ACRONYM DEFINITIONS

AFFARS Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

CONUS Continental United States

CPARS Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

CPI Consumer Price Index

DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency

DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

ECI Employment Cost Index

ENs Evaluation Notices

EUL Use Enhanced Lease

FAPIIS Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FBRs Fully Burdened Rates

FMPR Fair Market Pricing Range

FPR Final Proposal Revision

HELU Housing, Enhanced Use Leasing, Lodging, and Utility

HEU Housing, Enhanced Use Leasing, and Utility

HP Housing Privatization

ID/IQ Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity

IGCE Independent Government Cost Estimate

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

OCONUS Outside Continental United States

PCO Procuring Contracting Officer

PMP Privatization Management Programs

PoP Period of Performance

PPQs Past Performance Questionnaires

PWS Performance Work Statement

RFO Revolutionary FAR Overhaul

SBPC Small Business Participation Commitment

SME Subject Matter Expert

SSA Source Selection Authority

TEP Total Evaluated Price

THPI Transient Housing Privatization Initiative

UP Utilities Privatization

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded