draft SectM FA812520R0026.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Source Selection (SS)

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. 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 technically acceptable proposal, and superior technical risk and/or past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced Offerors.

1.1.1 The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2 This source selection is conducted IAW FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/.

1.2 Number of Contract to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency, weakness, and/or significant weakness. The correction potential is based on the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirements.

1.4 Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, IAW FAR 15.306(c). During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(d)(5). The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 - Technical, Factor 2 - Technical Risk, Factor 3 - Past Performance, Factor 4-Price, or a combination of the four factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If

Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.5 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if Offerors will be required to include EN responses in the FPR. The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how Offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions.

1.6 Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned. However, the SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/sub-factors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and sub-factors. 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1 – Technical

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Subfactor 2: Program Management Subfactor 3: Scenario Development

Factor 2 – Technical Risk

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Factor 4 – Price

2.1.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Sub-factors

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Technical Risk, Past Performance and Price. The order of importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 – Technical Risk and Factor 3 – Past Performance will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to each other. Factor 2 – Technical Risk and Factor 3

– Past Performance are individually more important than Factor 4 – Price. When combined, Factor 2 – Technical Risk and Factor 3 – Past Performance are significantly more important than Factor 4 – Price.

2.1.2 Evaluation Methodology

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each Offeror in determining the competitive range. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposal on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. Technical Risk will be evaluated for only Factor 1 – Technical, Subfactor 3 – Scenario Development as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.5 below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess Technical Risk (Factor 2) ratings, Past Performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which Offeror provides the overall best value to the Government.

2.2 Factor 1 – Technical

The Technical evaluation will be based on each’s Offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each Offeror’s Technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each sub-factor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below.

Individual sub-factor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offer.

To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be acceptable in each sub-factor. A single deficiency within a sub-factor will result in an Unacceptable rating for that sub-factor.

A final Unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical Unacceptable rating, and therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability for Subfactors 1 and 2. Technical Risk will be evaluated separately for Subfactor 3.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Approach approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L. The sub-factor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides convincing rationale about how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance:

a. The proposed technical approach must provide processes, tools, and reporting methods to develop and present the Health Assessments and Preventative Maintenance Assessments IAW

PWS 1.3.1 and 1.4.

b. The proposed approach for providing Level 1 Remedial Maintenance including process for telephonic support, and a description of skills, certifications, and training for Level 1 CNC personnel.

c. The proposed approach for providing Level 2 Remedial Maintenance including processes for diagnosis, repair, test, calibration, and elevation process, and a description of skills, certifications, and training for personnel assigned to Level 2 CNC efforts.

d. The proposed approach for providing Level 3 Remedial Maintenance including processes for obtaining and managing OEM subcontractors, and a description of skills, certifications, and training for personnel assigned to Level 3 CNC efforts.

2.2.2 Sub-factor 2: Program Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s Program Management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L. The sub-factor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides convincing rationale about how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance:

a. An approach to establish and maintain relationships with the Original Equipment Manufacturers’ to facilitate Level 3 subcontracting efforts, IAW PWS 1.3.4 and 3.3.

b. The proposed personnel management plan must meet all required skillsets, for Level 1, Level 2, and potential Level 3 personnel to sufficiently support the CNC RM effort

IAW PWS 1.20.

c. An approach to subcontracting must clearly describe plan to provide subcontracting to Small Businesses each year. The Offeror’s approach must clearly describe how the Offeror intends to meet and maintain the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS clause 252.219-7003.)

2.2.3 Sub-factor 3: Scenario Development

The Government will assess the Offeror’s Scenario Response approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L. The sub-factor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides convincing rationale about how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements:

a. The Offeror’s Scenario One approach must ensure steps for processes, parts procurement, test equipment, and materials are identified, subcontractor work is defined, and all assumptions, tradeoffs, and risks in the approach are explained, to return the item to service IAW PWS paragraph 1.16.

b. The Offeror’s Scenario Two approach must ensure steps for processes, parts procurement, test equipment, and materials are identified, subcontractor work is defined, to service IAW PWS paragraph 1.16.

c. The Offeror’s Scenario Three approach must ensure steps for processes, parts procurement, test equipment, and materials are identified, subcontractor work is defined, to service IAW PWS paragraph 1.16.

2.3 Factor 2 – Technical Risk

The Technical Risk evaluation assesses the degree to which the Offeror’s technical approach for Factor 1 – Technical, Subfactor 3 – Scenario Development may cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical Risk is manifested by the identification of weaknesses or significant weaknesses. The Technical Risk evaluation does not consider the Offeror’s proposed price. For the Technical Risk evaluation, the Government will utilize the data, information, and approach in the Volume I Technical Proposal for Subfactor 3 – Scenario Development submitted by the Offeror. The Government will review and analyze the Offeror’s approach and apply professional judgment in determining whether the approach includes weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses in relation to Subfactor 3. NOTE: The Government will not evaluate Factor 1 – Technical, Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach nor Subfactor 2 – Program Management for Factor 2 – Technical Risk. As stated above, Subfactors 1 and 2 will be evaluated for risk inherently as part of acceptability. Subfactor 3 – Scenario Development will be evaluated for Factor 2 - Technical Risk and will receive a single risk rating.

The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness or significant weakness identified, the evaluation will consider the probability of whether the weakness/significant weakness will occur, and the impact to the program if the weakness/significant weakness were to occur. The definitions of Weakness and Significant Weakness IAW the FAR 15.001 and DoD Mandatory Source Selection Procedures are outlined below:

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

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Offeror’s risk assessment provided IAW Section L, ITO paragraph 5.0 will be evaluated by the Government. The evaluation will also consider risk mitigations proposed by the Offeror, and whether the mitigation approach is manageable. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine if there is any risk, which was not identified by the offeror. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s proposed risk rating.

Each proposal will received one of the risk ratings described below. To be eligible for award, an Offeror must receive a Low or Moderate Technical Risk Rating. For the best value determination, tradeoff considerations for Technical Risk will be based on any identified weaknesses and or significant weaknesses in each Offeror’s approach. The source selection team will specifically consider the probabilities of whether the weakness(es)/significant weakness(es) will occur and the impacts to the program in the weakness(es)/significant weakness(es) were to occur.

The technical risk ratings are defined as follows:

Rating Definition

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, 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, 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, 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.

2.4 Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation assess the degree of confidence that the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.4.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Rating Description

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.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all Offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance factor.

2.4.2 Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical sub-factors and Price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant performance. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less recent performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis. In conduction the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance volume and information obtained from other sources, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance.

2.4.2.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.4.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical sub-factors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and significant subcontractor(s)), as described in paragraph 6.3.1 of the ITO, Section L, Past Performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The

Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for program management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform program management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information submitted by Offerors along with information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1.2, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Note: The rating has been modified to remove the highest level, Very Relevant. The highest rating now available is Relevant.

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant (SR) Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Scope, magnitude, and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the CNC RM requirement. Consideration may be given to the following: program management, HA, PM Asssessments, Level 1 (Telephonic Support) RM, Level 2 (Contractor On-Site Support) RM, and Level 3 (OEM Subcontract Provided) RM Support.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the CNC RM requirement in terms variety of machines maintained, personnel skill type and level involved in the effort and contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform. Generally, efforts of less than $100,000 will not be considered relevant unless such efforts, when combined, comprise a significant amount of work.

(Example: multiple RM contracts under $100,000 on a large Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.)

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the CNC RM technical requirements, including the defined factors and sub-factors.

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price, Cost, Time and Materials) of previous effort as compared to the CNC RM requirement.

2.4.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (including ratings and supporting narratives), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources know to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information which the Government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality. 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 when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) (YELLOW) During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (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 (U)

(RED)

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

UNKNOWN (UK) Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.4.3 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.4.1 above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical sub-factors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant performance. A record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Satisfactory, or Limited Confidence, may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral 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.

2.5 Factor 4 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness (including completeness), balanced pricing, price realism, and total evaluated price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an Offeror’s price may be rejected; if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.5.1 Total Evaluated Price

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L, ITO pricing instructions. The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all Offerors. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price as computed IAW the detailed methodology provided in the Section L, ITO, paragraph 7.1.3. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.5.2 Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable, balanced, and realistic pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing and/or price realism. Offeror’s may provide any additional data other than certified cost or price data as believed necessary to support or justify proposed pricing.

2.5.3 Rounding

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format IAW Section L, ITO Paragraph 7.1.1 to determine the extended pricing and TEP.

2.5.4 Estimating, Purchasing, and Accounting Systems

The Government will review the summary and status of the estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems and note any deviations. The Government reserves the right to obtain information from the Contract Business Analysis Repository as considered necessary.

2.5.5 Estimating Techniques and Past Experience

The Government will review the basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was established. The relevance and application of the Offeror’s price estimates based on past experience will be reviewed by the Government.

2.5.6 Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the Price Proposal volume regarding cost/price assumptions utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand the Offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate.

2.5.7 Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government will review the Price Proposal volume for all Offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. This includes review of the areas of price reduction, such as profit, quantity or location discounts, indirect rate reductions, and so forth. Also, the

Offeror’s explanation of how such reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at performance risk will be evaluated.

2.5.8 Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for price reasonableness to include completeness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

2.5.9 Balanced Pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing to include any price increases greater than five percent per performance period, as well as any price decreases per performance period. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.5.10 Price Realism

Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price realism. This pertains to CLIN pricing as well as TEP. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, and must ensure the price does not pose a risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government may use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.5.11 Proposed Fixed Rates

The Government will review the Price Proposal volume to ensure Offeror-specific labor categories for Time and Material labor hors that form the basis for the proposed labor rates have been provided. No material handling rate will be allowed per statute.. The Government will confirm the Offeror has indicated understanding that proposed ceiling rates apply to out-years (period of performance) in the future despite what current actuals are running at the time.

2.5.12 Subcontractor Pricing

The Government will review the Price Proposal volume regarding information pertaining to subcontractor pricing. The Offerors’ determination of fair and reasonable pricing as it relates to subcontractors will be reviewed. Evaluation of subcontractor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair and reasonable. However, subcontractor pricing per se will not be evaluated. The Government will review Offerors’ application of their (prime’s) indirect costs, including General and Administrative, Cost of Money, and profit to subcontractor costs/pricing.

2.5.13 Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)

The Offeror’s proposal will be reviewed for compliance with SCLS. Compliance with the SCLS is the responsibility of the Offeror and subsequent contract awardee. It should be noted that actual compliance of Offerors’ wage rate payments to employees with the SCLS and regional Area Wage Determination as appropriate is not within the responsibility or purview of evaluators and shall not be reviewed. The Department of Labor is assigned SCLS compliance responsibilities and shall be the Government Point of Contact in regard to any compliance questions or concerns.

2.5.14 Other Documentation Review

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Proposal volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified cost or pricing data as believed necessary to support, justify or clarify their proposed pricing. All information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of reasonable, balanced, and realistic pricing.