Section M - Evaluation Criteria FINAL.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M – EVALUATION CRITERIA

As stated in FAR 15.204-1(b), Section M will not be physically included in any resultant contract.

EVALUATION

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1 This competitive best value tradeoff source selection was preparted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DOD) Source Selection Procedures and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection using the Best Value Tradeoff source selection process. This source selection will be conducted IAW the solicitation. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) deemed responsible IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements.

M-1.2 The Government contemplates award of two (2) contracts resulting from this solicitation, one (1) for USAFE and one (1) for PACAF. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract for one (1) or both requirements, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds. Evaluation will be conducted as outlined in M-3.

M-1.3 Factor ratings and assessments will focus on each proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, performance confidence and price. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that the technical superiority and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA bases the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors. While the Government evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-1.4 The Government intends to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s proposal is the best value solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. Should the Government determine it is in their best interest to open and conduct discussions, discussions will be held only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each Offeror’s technical, past performance, and price proposals.

M-1.5 If the Government holds discussions, the Government will issue evaluation notices to offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to evaluation notices and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

M-1.6 Facility Clearance Requirements. At proposal submission, the Offeror shall possess a SECRET facility security clearance to assume contract tasks and responsibilities. If an Offeror does not have this type of clearance at the time of proposal submission, the proposal will NOT be evaluated and is not eligible for award. The Government will NOT sponsor Offerors for facility clearances.

M-2 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION (FPR)

M-2.1 FPRs will be requested from each Offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions, if conducted. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions in the submitted FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new, or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. The Contracting Officer will establish a common due date and time for submission of the FPR.

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

Proposals will be evaluated using four (4) evaluation factors: (1) Program Management, (2) Technical Understanding, (3) Past Performance, and (4) Cost/Price. Factor 1, Program Management, is most important, and when combined with Factor 3, Past Performance, is significantly more important than Price. Technical Factor 2 is not to be considered part of the trade-off. Technical Factor 2 will be rated Acceptable/Unacceptable. Offerors who receive a Marginal or Unacceptable rating under Factor 1, or an Unacceptable rating under Factor 2 are ineligible for award. There are three (3) subfactors within the Program Management Factor: (A) Management Approach, (B) Quality Management System, and (C) Transition/Site Activation Planning. Subfactors are listed in order of importance. The greater the equality of proposals for factors other than price, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.

As a basis for award, price is of secondary consideration; therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. Price is not expected to be the most significant factor in the selection of an Offeror for this solicitation; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals for the other factors evaluated. When competing proposals are evaluated and determined to be approximately equivalent on technical, past performance and other non-price factors, total price and other price factors would become the most significant factor. Prices will be evaluated to determine if the proposed price is fair & reasonable, balanced, and realistic and to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between technical and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an abnormally priced cost estimate, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of price credibility rests solely with the Offeror. Price proposals will not be rated or scored. The Government will make a subjective evaluation to determine if the Offeror’s technical approach and proposed price represents the greatest value to the Government.

VOLUME I: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING

M-3.1 TECHNICAL. The technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with the technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement. These two ratings presented together are of equal impact for the rating of each technical subfactor. The technical ratings shall be assessed at the subfactor level and an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. In order to be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all aspects of the technical subfactors and receive a minimum “GREEN” technical rating and a ”Moderate” technical risk rating for Factor 1. The Government reserves the right to incorporate any unique aspects or areas of the successful Offeror’s proposal that are deemed beneficial to the Government. These items will be considered to have merit to the overall performance of the contract and the process the contractor proposes. These portions will be incorporated into the PWS and therefore become part of the contract.

FACTOR 1 Program Management. Factor 1 consists of three (3) Subfactors: (A) Management Approach, (B) Quality Management System (QMS), and (C) Transition/Site Activation Planning. Each Offeror’s Factor 1 proposal will be evaluated for Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies (See Table 3 for definitions).

Each subfactor in Factor 1 will be assessed a rating of “Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable”.

Offerors must have at least an Acceptable rating. Each subfactor in Factor 1 will also be assessed a technical risk rating of Low, Moderate, High, or Unacceptable. Offerors must have either a Low or Moderate technical risk rating for each subfactor. Any offeror with a technical risk rating of High or Unacceptable may be ineligible for award.

Factor 1 will be evaluated using subjective tradeoff methodology described below.

Table 1: Factor 1 - Program Management Technical Ratings

Table 2: Factor 1 - Program Management Risk Ratings

Table 3: Factor 1 - Evaluation Definitions

M-3.1.1 The following are Program Management subfactors:

M-3.1.1.1 Subfactor A: Management Approach. This Subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates an effective integrated management approach for accomplishing program requirements to include:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description

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.

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

Significant Weakness

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

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 unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

a. Aspect I. Management plan detailing how personnel, resources, life cycle management, training, maintenance, exercises, contingencies, site management, employment in time of war, evacuations, and security will be managed throughout all locations of the GPMS contract. Identify a Data Management System (DMS) that ensures quality/timely services or products that safely fulfill PWS requirements and is responsive to the customer and an effective contractor/Government partnership.

b. Aspect II. An organizational chart with site-specific manpower tables as to how you plan to perform GPMS

Program baseline activities, sustainment, and reconstitution of GPMS resources and sites at all times.

c. Aspect III. Procedures to attract, train, and retain qualified management and technical personnel, which includes specific details for difficult to staff locations to meet PWS requirements, including an approach for limiting and mitigating employee turnover and vacancies.

d. Aspect IV. Key Personnel table identifying key personnel positions, qualifications, certifications, and credentials to become PWS Appendix K. Employees shall contribute to successfully executing the requirements of the program. Effective summary includes the following:

1) Position/Title

2) Work Experience (management, supervision, technical)

3) Education (if substituted by experience, specify equivalent level of experience)

4) Clearance (secret, national agency check, host nation clearance)

5) Certifications

e. Aspect V. Processes for supporting Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) requirements that reflect a clear understanding of theater/country clearance procedures, International Trafficking in Arms Regulation (ITAR) compliance, host nation labor laws, and general overseas business practices required to successfully perform and manage OCONUS requirements.

M-3.1.1.2 Subfactor B: Quality Management System. This Subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates an approach to create a quality culture that effectively integrates all aspects of the Quality Management System (QMS) built upon the seven fundamental quality management principles of: Customer Focus, Leadership, Engagement of People, Process Approach, Improvement, Evidence-Based Decision Making, and Relationship Management.

a. Aspect I. Explain how the principles integrate into the quality management system with emphasis on top management's commitment and involvement to develop, implement, maintain, surveil, and continually improve a comprehensive QMS that at a minimum complies with the most current ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001 standard and all contract requirements. Explain the processes that will be utilized for the QMS and their application throughout the organization.

b. Aspect II. Explain how there will be a continuous, proactive, preventive-based monitoring, measurement and analysis program that uses quantifiable metrics and focuses on conformance to the PWS, Appendix D, and the QMS, mitigating risk, and continuous improvement of contract requirements throughout the life of the contract. Processes should include management activities, provision of resources, service realization, and measurement with focus on Service Summary.

c. Aspect III. Provide evidence that shows how the Quality Manager will be trained and registered as an American Society for Quality (ASQ) Certified Quality Auditor and will been trained as an ISO 9001 Internal Auditor within 90-days after contract award.

d. Aspect IV. Provide two innovations in technology or processes for improvement to the Air Force and the GPMS mission. Explain how these innovations will benefit the Air Force and the GPMS mission.

M-3.1.1.3 Subfactor C: Transition/Site Activation Planning. This Subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates continuity of mission support and contract performance to include:

e. Aspect I. Realistic milestones to execute phase-in tasks to include vehicle/equipment transfer, facilities turnover, and ITAR licensing.

f. Aspect II. Adequate organizational structure that includes appropriate number of personnel, qualifications, and functional assignments to effectively accomplish transition tasks.

g. Aspect III. Effective and timely approach to integrate open actions (work orders, requisitions etc.), where applicable, at all operating locations to prevent interruption of services.

M-3.1.2 FACTOR 2: Technical Understanding. Factor 2 consists of three (3) Subfactors: (A) GPMS Asset Operations & Maintenance (O&M), (B) Mission Support, and (C) Outload & Reconstitution. Each Offeror’s Factor 2 proposal will be evaluated for deficiencies and weaknesses. Each subfactor in Factor 2 will be assessed as either Acceptable or Unacceptable based on whether the proposal meets the basic PWS requirements and standards, and satisfactorily addresses the evaluation criteria identified within the solicitation. Factor 2 will be evaluated using the methodology described in Table 4. Factor 2 will not be considered as part of the tradeoff.

Table 4: Factor 2 - Technical Ratings and Evaluation Methodology

To be eligible for award, an “Acceptable” rating for all technical subfactors in Factor 2 is required. Some technical subfactors contain aspects. Each subfactor will be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on whether the proposal meets the basic PWS requirements and standards, and satisfactorily addresses the evaluation criteria identified within the aspect. In assessing the acceptability of each subfactor, any weakness or deficiency will be noted IAW the definitions located in FAR Part 15.001 and Chapter 5 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Proposals that receive deficiencies or weaknesses will receive an “Unacceptable” rating. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings.

The following are Technical Understanding subfactors:

M-3.1.2.1 Subfactor A: GPMS Asset O&M. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates:

a. Aspect I. A logical, efficient, and flexible approach to production planning. This includes implementation of thorough integrated technical processes and resourcing, which will lead to longevity and serviceability of GPMS assets and Government-Furnished Equipment/Property (GFE/P).

b. Aspect II. Effective procedures for prioritizing and controlling scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.

Clearly identify estimated unscheduled maintenance hours for each functional area as a percentage of scheduled maintenance requirements.

c. Aspect III. Procedures that identify how to record, schedule, track status, and execute all maintenance, repair, and logistics related tasks will be accomplished.

M-3.1.2.2. Subfactor B: Mission Support. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of effective Mission Support processes and procedures that enable and support other key areas such as Program Management, Operations & Maintenance, Contingency Logistics Support, and Infrastructure Management as stated in the PWS to include:

a. Aspect I. Effective approach to identify, prioritize, allocate, manage, and control mission support functions to facilitate proactive day-to-day O&M and flexible response to CLS requirements such as GPMS Taskers.

b. Aspect II. Effective approach for providing Information Management and ability to process the full spectrum of information and data required to meet PWS requirements.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

c. Aspect III. Effective approach to provide contractor furnished mission support vehicles at contract start to meet ensure PWS requirements can be met.

M-3.1.2.3 Subfactor C: Outload & Reconstitution. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of effective outload/reconstitution preparation and execution to include:

a. Aspect I. Demonstrates an effective understanding and process flow for managing GPMS taskings and cost accounting procedures to required to support outloads and reconstitutions of GPMS assets.

b. Aspect II. Demonstrates effective understanding, procedures and processes for planning, preparing, delivering/out-loading GPMS assets/Unit Type Codes (UTCs) tasked to support exercises or contingency operations; describes effective logistics processes for issuing, transferring and accounting for tasked GPMS assets, to include distribution, materiel management, vehicle fleet management, container management, and contingency operations.

c. Aspect III. Demonstrates effective understanding, procedures and process for receiving, reconstituting and returning assets to a serviceable condition and storage following return from a contingency or exercise; to include, conducting receiving inspections, required maintenance, parts requisition, asset reconstitution (to include cost accounting IAW PWS Para. 2.4.2 & 2.4.3) that ensures the integrity and serviceability of assets prior to storage.

d. Aspect IV. Demonstrates a sound approach for cross-utilizing manpower/resources across the entire GPMS program and individual performance locations to support surge outload or reconstitution requirements that exceed individual storage location capacity.

M-3.2 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE. Past performance shall be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts. The performance confidence assessment will be assessed at an overall factor level after evaluating all aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors. Past performance will be evaluated by examining references submitted by the Offeror, as well as any other past performance found by the Government, and determined by the Government to be recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code 561210, Facilities Support Services.

M.3.2.1 Recency. A Recency determination will be made for each PPI reference provided. Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of six (6 months) during the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation). Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of six (6) months) during the five (5) years from the date of this solicitation), will be considered recent. If a PPI reference is determined recent, the Government may evaluate the Offerors’ performance record during the entire contract period.

M-3.2.2 Relevancy. A Relevancy determination of the Offeror’s Present and Past Performance for each PPI reference will be made. Relevancy for this solicitation is defined as past performance effort involving storage/accountability, maintenance, transportation (outload), reconstitution of military equipment and OCONUS work similar to the size, scope, and complexity of the GPMS program. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being performed by the Offeror, joint venture, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will validate the relevancy information contained in the contractor provided PPI reference. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy definitions apply:

Table 5: Past Performance Relevancy

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved storage/accountability, maintenance, outload/transportation, reconstitution of military equipment and OCONUS

M-3.2.3 Performance Confidence Assessment. The rating for the Past Performance factor is based on evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance data, resulting in an overall performance confidence assessment. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is recent and relevant to the Technical subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment represents the Government’s confidence in an Offeror’s ability to complete work of the same type, size and magnitude as the GPMS program. Each Offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as follows:

Table 6: Past Performance Confidence Ratings/Definitions

M-3.2.3.1 Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or 2) any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system that cause evaluator concern. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any actual 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. IAW FAR 15.306(b), Communications must be held with any Offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the Offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

M-3.2.4 In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence.” A “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in this solicitation.

work/technical services similar to the size, scope, and complexity of the effort described in the PWS at 5 or more OCONUS sites for a U.S. Government Agency.

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved storage/accountability, maintenance, outload/transportation, reconstitution of military equipment and OCONUS work/technical services similar to the size, scope, and complexity of the effort described in the PWS at 2-4 OCONUS sites for a U.S. Government Agency.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved storage/accountability, maintenance, outload/transportation, reconstitution of military equipment and OCONUS work/technical services similar to the size, scope, and complexity of the effort described in the PWS at 1 OCONUS site for a U.S. Government Agency.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires.

RATING DEFINITION

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

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

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M-3.2.5 Even though the assessment of past performance is separate and distinct from determination of responsibility required by FAR Part 9, past performance information evaluated may be used to support the determination of responsibility for the successful Offeror.

M-3.3 FACTOR 4: COST/PRICE

M-3.3.1 Price/cost will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair & reasonable, balanced, and realistic price.

M-3.3.1.1 A price analysis will be conducted IAW FAR 15.404-1(b). If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing to be fair and reasonable, and realistic, data other than certified cost or pricing data will be obtained from Offerors.

M-3.3.1.2 A cost analysis will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(c) and (d). Proposed costs should be broken down into cost elements and will be evaluated to ensure costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of your technical volume. In addition, analysis shall be performed to determine the probable cost of performance, reflecting the Government's best estimate of the cost most likely to result from your proposal, based on the cost analysis performed.

M-3.3.1.3 The Government has provided pre-established estimated amounts for Cost Reimbursable (CR) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). No fee is allowed.

M-3.3.1.4 In addition to the analyses as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), 15.404-1(c), and 15.404-1(d), proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (See FAR 15.404-1(g)). If cost or price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the Contracting Officer may determine that the offer poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may reject the Offeror’s proposal.

M-3.3.2 Price Realism. Price realism will be evaluated using techniques in FAR 15.404 for the Firm Fixed price Program Management, Contractor Furnished Vehicles, and Transition CLINs. To be realistic, the proposed price must be realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and be consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government intends to use one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed. There is a reasonable expectation of competition for this requirement; thus Offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal. The Offeror’s price proposal shall represent the Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where an Offeror’s proposed prices appear unrealistically low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. In instances where an Offeror receives at least a “GREEN” Program Management rating (Factor 1) with “MODERATE” technical risk, an “Acceptable” Technical Understanding rating, and at least a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating, yet proposed cost or prices appear unrealistically low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal.

M-3.3.3 Cost reasonableness and realism. Cost reasonableness and realism will be evaluated using the techniques in FAR 15.404, in order to determine the Offeror’s Total Overall Evaluated Price is reasonable and realistic. The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offerors' proposed costs. This cost realism assessment will determine if proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. The cost realism assessment will consider risks identified during the evaluation of the technical proposal and associated costs. The information collected in the cost realism assessment will be used to develop the Government’s most probable cost estimate. Cost information supporting a cost judged to be unreasonably high/unrealistically low will be quantified by the Government evaluators and included in the cost realism assessment and most probable cost adjustment for each offeror. When the Government evaluates an Offeror’s costs as unreasonably high or unrealistically low and the offeror fails to explain these costs, the Government will consider the offeror as having a lack of understanding of the technical requirement.

M-3.3.4 The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for Firm Fixed Price, Cost Reimbursable CLINs, the Award Fee CLIN, and the most probable cost for Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs; to include the base period, option years, and 50% of the last option period to cover the option to extend services.

NOTE: Evaluation of the option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Both the solicitation and resultant contract shall contain FAR clause 52.217-8 entitled “Option to Extend Services,” which states the Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract, up to an additional 6-month period. Offerors shall not include pricing in their proposal for the 6-month extension, as 50% of the last option period shall be used for pricing of the 6-month extension if FAR 52.217- 8 is required.

M-3.3.5 Pricing Table. The Offerors proposed price for all CLINs, including Transition, base period, and all option periods listed in Section L, Attachment 3 of the solicitation (Pricing Template) shall be in the Excel spreadsheet.

M-3.3.6 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Large Business Primes shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that complies with FAR Part 19, Small Business Programs, and its supplements. Identify the percentage of intended business with each of the following small business socioeconomic categories: Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, HUB-Zone Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, and Women-Owned Small Business. All Small Business Subcontracting goals shall be expressed in terms of percentage goals (percentage of total subcontract dollars and total contract dollars) IAW FAR 19.704. Successful Offerors’ Small Business Subcontracting Plans will be incorporated in the Contractor’s GPMS contract. Contractors will submit how they have performed compared to their proposed/accepted goals every 6 months via the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) and the Government will document performance accordingly. Failure to meet or make positive progress toward meeting proposed/accepted small business subcontracting goals may negatively impact a Contractor’s performance ratings; and may serve as justification for removal from GPMS contract.

Small Business Participation. The Offeror (Small Business Prime Contractors Only) shall provide a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) in response to the solicitation, which shall be evaluated in accordance with Section M of this solicitation. Small business concerns that qualify in more than one (1) socioeconomic category may be counted in each category for which they qualify. The SBPCD shall demonstrate the Offeror’s commitment to the utilization of Small Businesses, including subcategories, throughout the life of the contract [see DFARS 215.304(c)(i)]. At a minimum, the SBPCD must address the following elements:

(1) List by name the subcontractor(s) to be used and the products/services they are to provide and the NAICS code.

(2) Describe the extent of the Corporate level commitment to use small business (for example, what types of commitments (if any) are in place for this specific acquisition either – letters of intent, written contract, verbal, enforceable, non-enforceable, Joint Ventures, Mentor-Protégé, etc.). Please provide any supporting documents.

(3) Describe the complexity and variety of the work small businesses are to perform.

(4) For other than Small Business, submit a narrative of your approach to meet the proposed goals for subcontracting proposed. For Small Businesses, submit a narrative of your approach for subcontracted efforts.

Small business Offerors may include their own efforts when addressing the names, products and/or services and estimated total dollars planned to be provided by small business concerns. These requirements apply at the Prime contract and first tier subcontract levels.

The successful Offeror’s proposed SBPCD will be incorporated into the contract at contract award. Small businesses goals specifically identified in proposals must be consistent across the individual Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) and the SBPCD.

NOTE: To be determined acceptable, the Large Business Primes shall demonstrate a small business subcontract approach that complies with the proposed percentage of the total annual subcontract dollars and total contract dollars awarded to small businesses. In addition, Small Business Primes are to submit the SBPCD that ensures at least 51% of contract dollars are awarded to small business concerns.”