Attachment 0006 - Section M-Rev 1.pdf

COMPETITION SENSITIVE

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS FOR AWARD

This section is intended to explain the rationale and criteria by which Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation will be evaluated.

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

M.1.1. This acquisition will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1.

M.1.2. The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror's initial Proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a Technical, Management, and Price perspective. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions, if necessary. The Government also reserves the right to limit the competitive range for purposes of efficiency; make an award to other than the low offer;

and make no award should no offer prove to be acceptable based on the criteria set forth in the solicitation.

M.1.3. During the evaluation process, the Government may, at its sole discretion, enter into clarifications or communications, as needed. The Government need not enter into clarifications or communications with all Offerors. In evaluating the proposals, the Government may establish a competitive range (reference FAR 15.306(c)) to reduce the Offerors participating in the competition to only those with the most highly rated Proposals. Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified, in writing. If the Government enters into discussions, it will be with those Offerors within the competitive range.

All exchanges (clarifications, communications, and discussions) with Offerors will be accomplished through the release of Evaluation Notices (ENs), which may be issued through the Army’s Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool (ASSIST2Industry) Tool. However, the Government reserves the right to obtain clarifications; engage in communications; and/or hold discussions with Offerors outside the ASSIST2Industry Tool if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. [NOTE: Price ENs are called a “Cost/Price Concern” in the ASSIST2Industry Tool.]

M.1.4. ASSIST2Industry allows Offeror(s) to receive and respond to ENs securely online. If discussions are required, ENs may be in the form of weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, or deficiencies. EN definitions are as follows:

Table 1 – Findings and Evaluation Notice (EN) Definitions

EN

Description

Definition

Clarifications: Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications: Communications are exchanges between the Government and Offerors after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Deficiency A deficiency is a material failure of the 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.

Discussions Discussions are exchanges (i.e., negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal, and they take place after establishment of the competitive range.

Significant Strength

A significant strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength: A strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty: An uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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

M.1.5. The Government intends to make an award to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to be the most advantageous (best value) to the Government, considering the Government’s evaluation of the price and non-price Factors, and the relative importance assigned to each. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and other information required by Section L of the solicitation. In the event of a conflict between the Offeror's Proposal and the solicitation, the solicitation shall take precedence.

M.1.6. Offers are solicited on an all or none basis. Failure to include all items and quantities listed may be cause for rejection of the offer.

M.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS:

M.2.1. The Government intends to award a single Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract. The period of performance for this contract will include a one-year base period, four one-year option periods, and a potential 6-month extension under FAR 52.217-8.

M.3. REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS:

M.3.1. The Government reserves the right to reject proposals that are unreasonably high or low in Price. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall be construed to require a price realism analysis where none is otherwise required. The decision to conduct such an analysis remains at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

M.4. AWARD DECISION:

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be utilized in the selection of the Best Value Proposal:

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

SUBFACTOR 1A: EDIM MODEM SYSTEM DESIGN AND

DEVELOPMENT

SUBFACTOR 1B: EDIM MODEM SYSTEM QUALITY ASSURANCE

PROGRAM

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT

SUBFACTOR 2A: INTEGRATED LOGISTICS SUPPORT

SUBFACTOR 2B: INTEGRATED MASTER SCHEDULE

SUBFACTOR 2C: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

SUBFACTOR 2D: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

FACTOR 3: PRICE

M.4.1. EVALUATION FACTORS RANKING

M.4.1.1. The relative order of importance assigned to the evaluation factors and subfactors is as follows:

FACTOR 1 (Technical) is more important than FACTOR 2 (Management).

FACTOR 1 (Technical) is significantly more important than FACTOR 3 (Price).

FACTOR 2 (Management) is more important than FACTOR 3 (Price).

Collectively, FACTOR 1 (Technical) and FACTOR 2 (Management) are significantly more important than FACTOR 3 (Price).

The FACTOR 1 (Technical) subfactors are equally important.

The FACTOR 2 (Management) subfactors 2A, 2B and 2D are equally important, and each is more important than 2C.

M.4.1.2. If non-price factors are evaluated as comparatively equal between two or more Offerors, Price may become a determinative factor.

M4.1.3. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for both the Technical and Management factors.

M.5. RESPONSIBILITY:

M.5.1. The Government will determine responsibility by analyzing whether the apparent successful Offeror meets the requirements of FAR Subpart 9.1.

M.5.2. If submitted, the Government will review the apparent successful Offerer’s Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan as part of the responsibility determination and make a determination as to whether or not the OCI Mitigation Plan is sufficient to avoid or mitigate the OCI. If the apparent successful Offeror’s OCI Mitigation Plan is determined to be unacceptable, the Government will inform the Offeror of the shortcomings of the plan and give the Offeror an opportunity to submit a corrected plan. The Government may consider an Offeror whose OCI Mitigation Plan is determined to be unacceptable to be not responsible and ineligible to receive an award.

M.6. PROPOSAL EVALUATION:

M.6.1. All Proposals will be evaluated by a team of Government personnel, with advisory Contractor support, in strict compliance with the evaluation criteria described within the solicitation.

M.6.2. Except for Subfactor 2C (Small Business Participation), Offerors’ Technical and Management Proposals will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating scheme:

Table 2 – Technical and Management Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding (Blue)

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good (Purple)

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable (Green)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal (Yellow)

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable (Red)

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

M.6.3. Offerors’ Subfactor 2C (Small Business Participation) Proposals will be evaluated using the following adjectival rating scheme:

Table 3 – Small Business Participation Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding (Blue)

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good (Purple)

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable (Green)

Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Marginal (Yellow)

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable (Red)

Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M.7. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS:

The Government will evaluate each Offeror's Proposal based on its thoroughness, feasibility, and comprehension of the EDIM Modem System Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements. The Government will consider the following factors:

M.7.1. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor to determine the extent to which the Offeror's technical approach: (1) clearly meets the PWS and EDIM Modem System Specification requirements; (2) clearly demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of and ability to execute the PWS and EDIM Modem System Specification requirements; and

(3) is feasible and likely to result in successful performance.

M.7.1.1. Subfactor 1A - EDIM Modem System Design and Development

a. Knowledge and Experience. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s knowledge and relevant experience in Military Satellite Communications

(MILSATCOM) Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) modems, Digital IF interfaces, transmission security and certification requirements, NATO STANAG 4486 (EBEM) Waveform, Digital Video Broadcasting Second Generation Extensions (DVB-2SX) Hub Waveform (if offered), and cybersecurity implementation to determine the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates the ability to successfully execute the PWS and EDIM Modem System Specification requirements.

b. Comprehensive Design Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to designing and developing the EDIM Modem System to determine the extent to which it:

1) Meets all the requirements in the PWS and EDIM Modem System Specification; and

2) Will successfully identify, address, and mitigate any risks to schedule and/or performance.

c. Digital IF Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Digital IF approach to determine the extent to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully support the Digital IF requirements in the EDIM Modem System Specification and Digital IF interoperability IAW IEEE-ISTO Std 4900-2021: Digital IF Interoperability 1.0 Standard v1.1. In so doing, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to the following sections of the EDIM Modem System Specification:

1) 3.1.1.2.3 “Digital IF 10GbE”

2) 3.1.1.2.4 “Digital IF 40/100 GbE”

3) 3.2.4 “Digital IF Interface” and its subsections

4) 3.2.5.6 "DM Operation” and its subsections

5) 3.2.5.7 “DM Uplink Performance” and its subsections

6) 3.2.5.8 “DM Downlink Performance” and its subsections

d. Interoperability Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s interoperability approach to determine the extent to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully deliver comprehensive and easily configurable plug-and-play interoperability with distant end legacy modems (e.g., the EBEM) and legacy DVB-S2X modems, if DVB-S2X is offered. In so doing, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to EDIM Modem System Specification, Section

3.2.5.2 “Modem Waveforms” and its subsections.

e. Integration Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s integration approach to determine the extent to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully meet the physical integration requirements in the EDIM Modem System Specification, such as carrier count, total data traffic capacity, total symbol rate capacity, instantaneous bandwidth, and Digital IF function in the allowed space. In so doing, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to the following sections of the EDIM Modem System Specification:

1) 3.2.3 “L-Band Interface”

2) 3.2.4 “Digital IF Interface”

3) 3.2.4.1 “Digital IF Capacity”

4) 3.2.5.1.2 “Carrier Count and Independence”

5) 3.2.5.1.3 “Data Traffic Rates”

6) 3.2.5.1.4 “Symbol Rates”

7) 3.6.4 “19” Rack Mountable Enclosure Packaging” and its subsections

f. Management and Control (M&C) Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to delivering M&C architecture to determine the extent to which it meets the requirements in EDIM Modem System Specification, Section 3.3 and its subsections, and to determine the extent to which it simplifies the following functions for the EDIM Modem System operator:

1) Modem configuration and operation,

2) Digital IF configuration and operation,

3) Status monitoring,

4) Alarm monitoring,

5) Authentication,

6) Secure key loading, storage, and management of EBEM SMATs and derived keys.

g. Cybersecurity Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s cybersecurity approach to determine the extent to which it meets the requirements in PWS, Section 7 and it subsections, and EDIM Modem System Specification, Section

3.4 and its subsections, including, but not limited to the following:

1) FIPS 140-3 certification,

2) User identification and authentication,

3) Comprehensive key management, to include operator authentication certificates, EBEM SMATs and derived modem keying elements, etc.

4) Network isolation of M&C, data traffic, and Digital IF ports, and

5) Cybersecurity updates throughout the EDIM Modem System lifecycle.

h. Update/Upgrade Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to updates/upgrades to determine the extent to which it meets the requirements in PWS, Section 2.2, and EDIM Modem System Specification, Section 3.7 and its subsections, and to determine the extent to which it will successfully provide and simplify updates/upgrades IAW throughout the EDIM Modem System lifecycle, both generally and specifically for the operator, with respect to the following:

1) Software and/or firmware updates required as part of Engineering Change Proposals, and

2) Future EDIM Modem System upgrades IAW EDIM Modem System Specification Section 3.7.2 “Future Capabilities” and its subsections.

i. Data Rights. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the extent to which it addresses the data rights for any customization of commercial off the shelf software required for its proposed design and complies with PWS Sections 3.5.2.2 and 5.4.2.

M.7.1.2. Subfactor 1B - EDIM Modem System Quality Assurance Program

a. ISO 9001:2015 Readiness. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror and its major subcontractors, including software developers, are ISO 2001:2015 certified, as well as the extent to which the Offeror and its major subcontractors have an effective Quality Assurance system that complies with EDIM Modem System program and ISO 9001:2015 standard requirements. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to applying the ISO 9001:2015 standards to the EDIM Modem System program to determine the extent to which it is feasible and likely to result in successful performance.

b. Verification Resources. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s facilities, test equipment, and personnel to determine the extent to which they are adequate to implement the Offeror’s EDIM Modem System Quality Assurance Program. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to utilizing those facilities, test equipment, and personnel to determine whether it is feasible and likely to result in successful verification.

c. Testing Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to executing the “Quality Assurance Provisions” of EDIM Modem System Specification, Section 4 and its subsections, to determine the extent to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the “Quality Assurance Provisions;” the extent to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully meet all the requirements in the EDIM Modem System Specification; and the extent to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to successfully comply with all required schedules/timelines.

d. Digital IF Verification. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to verifying the Digital IF requirements in the EDIM Modem System Specification to determine the extent to which it is feasible and likely to result in successful verification. In so doing, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to the following sections of the EDIM Modem System Specification:

1) 4.3.1.1.2 “Rear Panel Interfaces”

2) 4.3.2.4 “Digital IF Interface” and its subsections

3) 4.3.2.5.6 "DM Operation”

4) 4.3.2.5.7 "DM Uplink Performance” and its subsections

5) 4.3.2.5.8 “DM Downlink Performance” and its subsections

e. M&C Verification. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to verifying the M&C requirements in EDIM Modem System Specification, Section 4.3.3 and its subsections, to determine the extent to which it is feasible and likely to result in successful verification.

f. Cybersecurity Verification. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to verifying the Cybersecurity requirements in PWS, Section 7 and its subsections, and EDIM Modem System Specification, Section 4.3.4 and its subsections, to determine the extent to which it is feasible and likely to result in successful verification of the requirements.

M.7.2. FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach to determine the degree to which it: (a) clearly addresses all of the management requirements in the PWS; (b) clearly demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of and ability to execute those requirements; and (c) is feasible and likely to result in the successful performance.

M.7.2.1. Subfactor 2A - Integrated Logistics Support

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to meeting the EDIM Modem System sustainment support requirements associated with contractor depot level maintenance to determine the extent to which it meets the requirements in PWS, Section 5.1 and its subsections. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to the following PWS requirements to determine the extent to which it is feasible and meets those requirements:

1) The Electronic Technical Manual (ETM) development and submittal requirements (PWS, Section 5.4 and its subsections), and

2) The Instructor Key Personnel (IDK) training requirements (PWS, Section 5.6 and its subsections).

b. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror adequately identifies the Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) required for the sustainment of the EDIM Modem System equipment. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of how end users will remove and replace LRUs as part of normal sustainment practices to determine the extent to which the proposed procedures are feasible and easy to execute.

c. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s warranty approach to determine the extent to which it is feasible and meets the warranty requirements in Section 2.4 of the PWS. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to executing each major event/ function from the time the Offeror receives notification of a failure to the time the Government receives a repaired or replacement part to determine the extent to which it is feasible and will result in the timely repair or replacement of failed parts.

M.7.2.2. Subfactor 2B - Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s IMS to determine the extent to which it is logical and comprehensive; identifies the dates and duration of the events/activities identified in Section 6.1d of the PWS; includes the Offeror’s proposed production and CDRL delivery dates, along with the monthly minimum and maximum units that the Offeror can deliver; identifies any dependencies that may exist between the identified events/activities; demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of and ability to execute requirements in the PWS and the EDIM Modem System Specification; and is feasible and likely to result in successful performance.

M.7.2.3. Subfactor 2C - Small Business Participation

a. THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESS

OFFERORS ONLY. SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS WILL BE GIVEN THE

MAXIMUM SCORE, CREDIT OR RATING.

b. Small Business Participation is evaluated to support the Government policy that small businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan demonstrates the Offeror’s commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses. In so doing, the Government will consider both the degree to which an Offeror meets or exceeds any single socio-economic category, as well as the number of socio-economic categories that an Offeror meets or exceeds.

c. The Government will consider two areas:

1) Proposed Small Business Participation Plan

2) Commitment to Small Business

d. The Government has established the following goals for this procurement, based on total contract value (including options):

Small Business (SB) 15% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 2% Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) 4% HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) 4% Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) 3% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 3%

e. Proposed Small Business Participation Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Small

Business Participation Plan (Attachment 0007) against the Government’s goal for each socio-economic category. In so doing, the Government will compare the Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation for each category to the Government’s goal. The Government will also evaluate the proposed plan on the extent of participation for multiple socio-economic categories. Finally, the Government will evaluate the proposed plan on the percentage of total dollars going to small businesses.

f. Commitment to Small Business

1) Payment Procedures. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written statement of its established procedures for timely payments to small business subcontractors in accordance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, for those contracts under which it was required within the three years prior to the closing date of this solicitation, to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s procedures are feasible and likely to result in timely payments to small business subcontractors. If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

2) Compliance with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) or Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs), for contracts performed within the three years prior to the closing date of this solicitation that required a subcontracting plan, to determine the extent to which the Offeror has historically met (or exceeded) its subcontracting goals and otherwise complied with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9. If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

M.7.2.4. Subfactor 2D – Program Management

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach to determine the extent to which it meets the development, testing, software engineering and sustainment, cybersecurity, production management, and configuration management requirements in the EDIM Modem System PWS and EDIM Modem System Specification. In addition, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach to determine the extent to which it: (1) is feasible and likely to ensure the successful completion of all required tasks; (2) is likely to result in the early detection and resolution of issues; (3) demonstrates flexibility in allocating resources based on Government priorities; and (4) demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to manage subcontractors effectively.

b. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s organizational structure to determine the extent to which the lines of authority, responsibility, and communication are sufficient to successfully manage the requirements in the EDIM Modem System PWS and EDIM Modem System Specification.

c. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s key personnel to determine whether they have the knowledge, education, experience, and certifications necessary to perform their assigned role/duties successfully.

M.7.4. FACTOR 3 –PRICE PROPOSAL

M.7.4.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Proposal IAW FAR 15.404.

The Government will evaluate the FFP CLINs for price reasonableness, M.7.4.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

M.7.4.2.1. The Offeror’s TEP will be evaluated, but it will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

M.7.4.2.2. The Offeror’s TEP will be the total reflected on the “Summary” tab of the Price Matrix, which includes the proposed amounts for all the CLINs for the Base Year, the proposed amounts for all the CLINs for Option Years 1-4, and the amount calculated for the Option to Extend IAW FAR Part 52.217-8 (i.e., ½ of the total for Option Year 4).

[NOTE: The evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.]

M.7.4.2.3. FFP CLINs for Production Hardware - Range Quantity and LRU Spare - Range Quantity

For evaluation purposes, each range unit price will be multiplied by the corresponding range upper limit quantity to derive an amount. These amounts will then be summed, and this sum will be divided by the respective quantity of the sum of the upper limit of each corresponding range (range quantity summation). This amount will be the average unit price for the respective CLIN and will be multiplied by the defined quantity (“Q”) to yield the evaluated price for the respective CLIN.

For example:

Range Quantity FFP U/P

1 to 10 10 $120.00 $1,200.00 (range evaluation)

11 to 50 50 $110.00 $5,500.00 (range evaluation)

51 to 100 100 $100.00 $10,000.00 (range evaluation)

160 $16,700.00 (summation)

Range evaluation summation = $16,700.00 divided by 160 (range quantity summation) = $104.38 as the average unit price (rounded to 2 decimals).

This average unit price of $104.38 is multiplied by the defined quantity “Q” of 45 each to yield the evaluated price for this example CLIN of $4,697.10.

M.7.4.2.4. FFP CLINs for Technical Studies

For evaluation purposes, the Government has prescribed surrogate amounts for the optional Study CLINs, which have been entered into the Price Matrix for each of the respective periods. These surrogate amounts will be included in the Offeror’s TEP.

M.7.4.3. Price Analysis

M.7.4.3.1. Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit (or fee), and may include evaluating data other than certified cost or pricing data obtained from the Offeror when there is no other means for determining a fair and reasonable price. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to request data other than certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary to determine a fair and reasonable price.

M.7.4.3.2. The Government will use the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine the price reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed amounts for the FFP CLINs.

M.7.4.3.3. The Government may use additional analysis techniques, as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer, to determine the price reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed amounts for the FFP CLINs. These methods of evaluation may include the use of information/input from other sources, including, but not limited to, other Government agencies and personnel.

M.7.4.4. Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Proposal to identify any unbalanced pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), the Government may reject a proposal if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.