Attachment_0003_Section_M_UC_Soft_Client_Draft.docx

Sections M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL

M.1.1. Competition and Basis for Award

a. The USG is conducting this competition on a full and open basis in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.100 and 15.101-1 Best Value Continuum, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, and the Army Supplement to the DoD Source Selection Procedures. A single contract award will be made to the Offeror who is determined to be best value to the USG IAW the criteria set forth in Section M of this solicitation. Awarded contract will be a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) and Firm-Fixed-Unit Price contract consisting of one (1) base year, with four (4) one-year options.

b. Contract award will be made to that Offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the USG based on an integrated assessment of the non-price and price related factors. The evaluation will be conducted in a two phase approach, with the first phase being rated on an acceptable/unacceptable rating criteria.

Offerors that receive a rating of “Acceptable” in the first phase (Phase One), will be evaluated in the second phase (Phase Two) using a best value with tradeoff approach). Phase Two factors include: Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation and Price. The non-price factors will be rated using color coding and adjectival scales. Price will be evaluated, but the factor will not receive a color coded adjectival rating.

c. As this is a best value procurement, the USG reserves the right to make an award to an Offeror other than the lowest priced Offeror or the highest rated proposal. In the event, if the non-price factors are evaluated as comparatively equal between two or more Offerors, the Price factor may become the determining factor for award.

d. Unless all offers are rejected, award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the best overall value to the USG, price and other factors considered. Within the best value continuum, the USG will employ a “Price/Technical Tradeoff” analysis of price and non-price factors (FAR 15.101-1) in evaluating the proposals submitted. Award is subject to the availability of funds in accordance with 52.232-18.

e. To receive consideration for award, an adjectival rating of at least “Acceptable” must be achieved for Volume III-Technical to include all sub-factors and Volume V-Small Business Participation. A rating of at least Satisfactory must be achieved for Volume IV-Past Performance. The adjectival ratings are defined in each Phase below. An award will not be made to any Offeror that has a deficiency in any factor.

f. All compliant proposals will be subject to evaluation by a USG Source Section Team. Proposal content will be evaluated to determine the degree and extent to which the requirements set forth in the solicitation are satisfied. Assumptions will not be made by USG evaluators regarding areas not defined in the Offeror’s submitted proposal, with the exception of Past Performance where data extrinsic to an Offeror’s proposal may be evaluated.

g. Contract award will be determined based upon the evaluation of each Offeror’s complete proposal against the evaluation criteria identified below.

h. The USG intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. However, if determined to be necessary by the USG, a competitive range consisting of the most highly rated proposals may be established FAR 15.306 (c). The USG may engage in communications under FAR 15.306(b) as necessary to determine which Offerors shall remain and be included within the Competitive range. The competitive range, if necessary, will be established taking into account that a single award will be made. Any proposal which does not have a realistic chance of receiving award will not be included in the competitive range.

i. In the event a competitive range is established, the USG will conduct discussions with all Offerors in the competitive range. Discussions will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306(d). At the conclusion of discussions, the USG will request final revised proposals from all remaining Offerors. Offerors determined not within the competitive range will be notified of this decision, IAW FAR 15.503. If during discussions it is determined that an Offeror’s proposal shall no longer be included in the competitive range, the USG reserves the right to eliminate the proposal from consideration for award and will notify the Offeror this decision IAW FAR 15.503.

M.2 Factors to Be Evaluated

Phase ONE Volume I - Security and Experience

i. Gate 1 - Unified Capabilities (UC) Approved Products List (APL)

ii. Gate 2 - DoD Provisional Authorization (PA)

iii. Gate 3 - Experience Offerors must achieve a rating of acceptable in ALL three gates to be evaluated to Phase Two.

Phase TWO Volume III - Factor 1 Technical Approach

Sub-factor 1 is more important than Sub-factor 2. Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor 2 and 3, and significantly more important than Factor 4.

Volume IV - Factor 2 Past Performance

Factor 2 is significantly less important than Factor 1, but slightly more important than Factor 3 and Factor 4.

Volume V - Factor 3 Small Business Participation Factor 3 is significantly less important than Factor 1 and slightly less important than Factor 2, but slightly more important than Factor 4.

Volume VI - Factor 4 Price When Factor 1, 2, and 3 are combined, they are significantly more important than Factor 4 Price.

M.2.1 Relative Order of Importance Terminology

M. 2.1.1 Phase Two consists of four factors. In order to provide the Offeror with an understanding of the significance assigned by the USG, the factors are assigned a relative order of importance. The following terminology is used:

Significantly More Important- The factor is substantially more important than another factor. The factor is given more consideration than another factor.

Slightly More Important- The factor is greater in value than another factor, but not as much as a significantly more important factor. The factor is given more consideration than another factor.

Slightly Less Important- The factor is of lesser value than another factor, but not as much as a significantly less important factor. The factor is given less consideration than another factor.

M.3 Evaluation Approach

The USG may render any proposal unacceptable which:

· Merely offers to perform work according to the solicitation terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the SOLICITATION terms without support and elaboration as specified in Section L of this Solicitation.

· Reflects an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the solicitation requirements in relation to the proposed prices.

· Is unbalanced within the meaning of FAR Part 15, or is unbalanced as to prices for the first option period and for subsequent option periods where prices are significantly high or low for one given period versus another period.

· Fails to meaningfully respond to the Instructions specified in Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation.

· Cross references from one volume to another volume. All volumes shall be complete with no cross-referencing between volumes. The Government may cross reference volumes in its evaluation, in the event it will provide clarification or resolve discrepancies, i.e. pricing needs confirmation that labor categories that were referenced in price proposal were referenced in technical proposal, to ensure that both volumes are consistent.

Any proposal that is evaluated as unacceptable in terms of any of the evaluation factors may be rejected for such reasons. Furthermore, any significant inconsistency between proposed Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation and Price submitted, if unexplained, may be grounds for rejection of the proposal due to an Offeror’s misunderstanding of the work required or an inability to perform any resultant work under the contract. The USG will evaluate each proposal strictly IAW its’ content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the Offeror’s proposal.

M.3.1. Phase ONE

a. All proposals will be initially evaluated for compliance for all with the instructions in Section L and the solicitation. Offerors will be eliminated for failing to comply with any mandatory instructions as indicated in Section L (all phases).

b. Offerors who submitted proposals in accordance with instructions and have met the compliance requirements, will have its Phase One proposal evaluated by an evaluation team. The USG may engage in clarifications and/or communications with Offerors in Phase One IAW FAR 15.306(a) and (b). The USG does not intend to hold discussions in this Phase.

c. The USG will review the submitted information in Volume I- Phase One Security and Experience for compliance with the criteria in Section L and evaluate it on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. A proposal that receives an unacceptable rating in any gate under Phase One-Volume I, will render the entire proposal ineligible for award and will not be evaluated further or considered for award. For Offerors rated “Acceptable” in the all gates of Phase One-Volume I, will have its proposal evaluated in Phase Two, in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in Section M of the solicitation.

Phase One will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as follows:

Acceptable: Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.1.1. Gate 1 - Unified Capabilities (UC) Approved Products List (APL)

The Offerors proposal and documentation submitted will be evaluated to determine that the proposed solution is listed on the DoD UC APL as an approved UC Collaboration Product (UCCP). The USG will use the Defense Information Systems Agency Approved Products List Integrated Tracking System and the supporting date provided in the Offeror’s proposal to verify that the Offeror’s solution is UC APL UCCP approved. If a solution is proposed that does not meet the UC APL Certification, it will be determined unacceptable. Only solutions meeting the UC APL Certification will be determined acceptable.

M.3.1.2. Gate 2 - DoD Provisional Authorization (PA)

If the Offeror submits a Provisional Authorization certification for their specific UC soft-client cloud service offering at the appropriate level, the requirement will be deemed acceptable. If the Offeror submits a Third Party Assessment Organization (3PAO) Security Assessment Report shows the ability to achieve a PA at the appropriate level within 90 days, the requirement will be deemed acceptable.

The Third Party Assessment Organization (3PAO) Security Assessment Report and supporting Artifacts is the second entry level of acceptance to the source selection evaluation for this acquisition. The Government will make a quick-look review of the 3PAO-produced assessment package. The documentation package shall be initially reviewed for completeness and the likelihood that the FedRAMP and FedRAMP+ requirements are or can be met for the required DoD PA within 90 days of contract award. Proposals that do not submit a 3PAO-produced Security Assessment Report with supporting Artifacts or whose proposals do not pass the quick look review will be rejected, and the Offeror's proposal will be given no further consideration, and the proposal volumes will not be opened or proceed into the source selection process. (Ref. UC Soft Client SOO, Paragraph 2.3 Cybersecurity Requirements). Proposals which demonstrate it cannot meet the PA requirements within 90 days or does not include the appropriate review times will be considered unacceptable.

M.3.1.3. Gate 3 - Experience

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on its experience deploying UC services to a minimum user base of 100,000, within a 36 month period. The USG will evaluate the examples submitted by the Offeror to ascertain that the Offeror has the necessary experience to perform the services required under this effort. Security levels of the deployments will be evaluated in order to ascertain the Offeror has experience with providing these services with unique security requirements which have been modified from the original commercial offering of the services. Offerors who fail to demonstrate experience at the required deployment level will be determined unacceptable. Only Offerors who are able to demonstrate experience at the required levels will be considered acceptable.

M.3.1.4 Volume II Contractual Documents

The content of this Volume will be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with and responsive to the terms and conditions of the SOLICITATION. Any deviations or non-compliances discovered in the compliance review may result in the proposal being rejected. The content of this Volume will not be included in the best value decision. The USG may incorporate selected information from the successful offeror’s proposal, including information contained in Volume II, into the awarded contract.

M.3.2. Volume III Phase TWO

M.3.2.1 Factor 1 Technical Approach

All Offeror’s proposed assumptions will be reviewed for compliance with the UC Soft Client requirements, feasibility, and risk.

The factor includes an assessment and evaluation of Volume III-Technical Approach and the following attachments:

· Offeror’s proposed Performance Work Statement (PWS) to include Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), which shall be aligned with the USG Provided Statement of Objectives (SOO)

· Offeror’s proposed Milestone Schedule

· Offeror’s proposed Service Level Agreement (SLA) In the technical factor, technical and risk evaluation will be combined and assigned a single rating. Risk will be assessed as an inherent part of the Technical Factor to form the basis of the factor rating. See M.3.2.4 for the definitions of the combined technical/risk ratings.

The USG will assess the Offeror’s Volume III-Technical Approach proposal and attachments for feasibility, service level performance, schedule, and risk management in accordance with:

a. The proposed approach is feasible and the end results are achievable and provide the USG with a high level of confidence of successful completion

b. The proposed performance is based upon proven products and techniques to deliver a Commercially Owed and Commercially Operated UC Soft Client Service

c. The proposed schedule can be completed with little risk to the USG and define the UC Soft Client constraints.

d. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror understands all aspects involved in meeting the requirements; and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.

e. The USG will evaluate proposals to determine compliance with all requirements of the solicitation, including any attachments and exhibits. It will also evaluate proposals for unique, creative and innovative methods, processes, and/or solutions that are beneficial to the USG and demonstrate responsiveness to customer needs.

f. Adequacy of Response/Completeness - The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offerors methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation.

M.3.2.1.1 Sub-factor I System Architecture:

a. The Offerors solution, including interfaces and technical approach to design, integrate, test , deploy, and support the solution to meet objectives will be evaluated to determine if the objectives stated in the SOO are being achieved and the approach is realistic and low risk. The Offerors Technical Approach will be evaluated on the basis of innovation evident in the proposed methods and techniques. The Offerors Technical Approach will be evaluated on the basis of the soundness and feasibility of the proposed approach and the effectiveness of the methods and techniques provided. The approach will be evaluated to ascertain the capability to meet DoD System and Cyber Security requirements in the design, deployment, integration, and continuing performance. The Technical Approach will be assessed to determine if it is adaptable to implement emerging requirements and to determine what, if any, level of risks will be posed to the USG.

b. The Offeror's proposed hosting solution will be evaluated to determine that it is in compliance with the Cloud Computing SRG version 1R2 (section 5.2.1.1.). The system architecture will be reviewed for completeness that demonstrates knowledge of the DoD environment. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed solution is capable of being hosted in classified and unclassified environments as proposed and is able to meet the performance requirements. The proposal will be evaluated to determine what risks and performance risks the Offeror's proposed approach for hosting CONUS and OCONUS requirements brings to the USG and overall success in meeting requirements. It will be evaluated to determine if it is comprehensive, feasible, realistic, and achievable.

c. If Offeror has proposed an on-premise hosting solution, the USG will evaluate the NIPRnet and SIPRnet requirements for floor space, rack space, physical security/separation, high-density compute/cooling environments, per rack power requirements, bandwidth requirements, physical access requirements, remote management, and networking environment to determine if it is feasible, realistic, and what risks it brings to the USG as far as price and availability to accommodate within a USG facility and if the proposed solution is feasible and meets the security requirements. The proposal will be evaluated for off premise and on premise hosting solutions on how the hosting environment will operate within the Cloud Access Point, if the approach is feasible, and what risks it presents. The Offeror's proposal will be evaluated on how the proposed service levels will be maintained during performance while being hosted in either off-premise or on-premise solutions as proposed, it will be looked at for feasibly, benefit and risks it brings to the USG.

d. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s PSTN integration proposal to determine that its approach, methodology and the tools it plans to employ demonstrate that the Offeror can successfully execute this task. The USG will evaluate the PSTN integration approach to determine feasibility, completeness, and compliance with the Unified Capabilities Requirements.

M.3.2.1.2 Sub-factor 2 Service Capability:

a. The proposal will be evaluated to ensure that all the minimum requirements have been addressed sufficiently on the Service Level Agreement. The content of the SLA will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror is providing an SLA that is realistic, and low risk to the USG. The SLA will be evaluated to determine that the Offeror can maintain and provide the highest level of service during performance. The overall SLA will be evaluated to determine what level of service and reliability the Offeror will be provide to the USG. The overall SLA will be evaluated for feasibility and risk to the USG. The SLA will be evaluated to determine which value and benefit it brings to the USG during performance of the requirement.

b. The Offeror's proposal will be evaluated to determine if its plan to achieve and maintain at a minimum of 99.9% availability of services is realistic, achievable, and what risks it presents.

c. The Performance work statement will be evaluated to ensure completeness and the tasks reflected in the PWS provides a complete list of tasks to reflect the Offeror's technical approach and requirements of the solicitation. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed training approach to determine whether Offeror’s proposed training approach is feasible, low risk, and achievable to successfully complete the USG’s requirements. The PWS will be evaluated to ensure it doesn't repeat statements back to the USG, but provides comprehensive information on how the Offeror will perform and provide the objectives of the SOO and requirements of the solicitation. The PWS will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror is providing the required capabilities and how its approach is realistic and feasible to include risk. The Offeror's approach to handling USG Furnished Property will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror is in compliance with requirements and appropriate regulations. The performance requirements summary will be evaluated to ensure completeness and compliance with the UCR. The USG will evaluate the PWS to ensure that it identifies the transfer of data and licenses to the USG contract close out is complete and realistic and to ensure it is low risk.

d. The proposed schedule and milestones will be evaluated to determine if the proposed PA, Integration, deployment and implementation approach is feasible, realistic, and achievable for the requirement and if it will provide a low schedule risk solution to the USG. The Offeror's milestone schedule will be evaluated through analysis of activates, design, security, test, deployment, training, integration, and operations. The anticipated activates, work streams, deliverables, and milestones planned for the proposed solution to meet the proposed IOC and FOC requirements will be analyzed and evaluated. The schedule will be evaluated based on proven and mature processes. A schedule that provides capabilities earlier than required while maintaining low risk is preferred. The schedule will be evaluated to the extent it represents the activities over the period of performance based on the SOO, Offeror's PWS, and the requirements of the solicitation. The schedule will be evaluated for accuracy and for required activities for the contractor and the USG and how it demonstrates to the evaluation team a thorough understanding of the requirement and a low risk proposal.

M.3.2.1.3 Factor 1 Technical Approach Evaluation Ratings and Definitions

A combined technical/risk rating will be assigned to Volume I-Factor 1 Technical Approach proposal. A combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of a proposal.

The USG will use the following adjectival rating definitions in the evaluation of the Volume III-Factor 1 Technical Approach will use a combined Technical/Risk Rating in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures. Each Technical/Risk Subfactor will receive an Adjectival Rating which will then be combined into one singular overall Factor rating. Ratings are provided below:

Technical Factor Rating Definitions

Blue

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

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

Green

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

Yellow

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

Red

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

M.3.2.2 FACTOR 2- PAST PERFORMANCE

M.3.2.2.1 Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The USG will assess the degree of confidence it has that the Offeror will successfully complete the requirements in accordance with the contract terms based on the Offeror's demonstrated record of recent, relevant performance.

Recent Contract definition: See L.3.3.1 Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders for the Past Performance Factor 2.

Relevant means: SeeL.3.3.1 - Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders for the Past Performance Factor 2.

M.3.2.2.2 Past performance will be evaluated for the Offeror. The Offeror’s recent and relevant projects/contracts will be assessed to determine the Offeror's Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

M.3.2.2.3 The USG may consider the recency, degree of relevance, source, and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as quality, general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem, problem resolution, or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the assessment process. A negative finding in any element may result in a lower Overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

M.3.2.2.4 Absent any recent and relevant past performance history, the Offeror will be assigned an "Unknown Confidence (Neutral) Past Performance Rating" and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

M.3.2.2.5 In conducting the past performance evaluation, the USG may use information obtained from other sources, or may use information with regard to other contracts performed by the Offeror of which it has knowledge, whether or not those contracts are disclosed to the USG by the Offeror.

M.3.2.2.6 In performing the evaluation of the Past Performance Factor, relevancy and performance confidence assessment ratings which will be used in the evaluation of past performance information is as follows:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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.

M.3.2.2.7 The USG is not required to interview all points of contact identified by the Offeror, but will make attempts to interview all points of contacts identified. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by Section L. The USG is not obliged to make another request for the required information.

M.3.2.2.8 References submitted for first tier or lower tier subcontracts will not be evaluated.

M.3.2.3 FACTOR 3 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

M.3.2.3.1 All assumptions will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements, feasibility and risk.

M.3.2.3.2 Small Business Participation is evaluated in order to support the USG policy that Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in USG acquisitions. The USG will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s Small Business Participation plan demonstrates the Offeror’s commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses. The USG 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 an Offeror meets or exceeds. The USG will consider two areas:

a. Proposed Small Business Participation

b. Commitment to Small Business

M.3.2.3.3 Definitions:

M.3.2.3.3.1 Participant, as used in this factor, includes the Offeror as well as any subcontractor.

M.3.2.3.3.2 Participation, as used in this factor, includes the work (dollars) performed by the Offeror, as well as the work (dollars) performed by subcontractors.

M.3.2.3.3.3 Requirement, as used in the adjectival ratings for this factor, is defined as a small business participation plan.

M.3.3 Proposed small business participation

The following objectives have been established for this procurement, based on total contract value:

SB goal: TBD SDB goal: TBD WOSB goal: TBD HUBZone goal: TBD VOSB goal: TBD SDVOSB goal: TBD

a. The Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Contract Participation Matrix will be evaluated against the USG’s objective for each socio-economic category.

b. The USG will verify that the size and socio-economic status for each small business subcontractor identified in the Contract Participation Matrix matches the subcontractors’ written certification. For HUBZone-certified subcontractors identified in the Contract Participation Matrix, the USG will verify the Offerors evidence of HUBZone certification IAW FAR clause 52.219-8(d)(2).

c. If the socio-economic status claimed in the matrix is not supported by the written certifications, the proposed percentages associated to the subcontractor for any unsupported category will be adjusted to zero. The USG will not upwardly adjust the proposed percentages if the Offeror fails to claim credit for all categories. However, failing to claim credit for all categories may be viewed as not maximizing opportunities for small businesses.

M.3.4 Commitment to Small Business

a. The USG will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror commits to using small businesses in this procurement. An Offeror who proposes little to no participation for multiple socio-economic categories may be viewed by the USG as having a lack of commitment to small businesses.

b. The Offeror’s historical small business performance will be evaluated on the probability of compliance with the requirement based on its recent performance record in the area of small business utilization, with specific consideration given to the following:

i. Compliance with all terms and conditions of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (when required on recent contracts). This shall include timely payments to Small Business subcontractors. If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

ii. Compliance with all terms and conditions of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (when required on the recent contracts), including actual small business utilization compared to small business subcontracting goals identified in the approved subcontracting plan for each recent contract that included a subcontracting plan. Offeror compliance with reporting requirements including Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISR). Offeror achievement on each individual goal stated within the subcontracting plan, to include a good faith effort if the goal was not achieved. If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

c. Additional documentation and explanations submitted in response to L.3.4 may be considered as part of the Offeror’s commitment to small business.

M.3.5 The USG will develop one overall Small Business Participation rating for each Offeror based on the evaluation criteria described above and assign an adjectival Small Business Participation Rating from the table below.

M.3.2.4 FACTOR 4 PRICE

M.3.2.4.1 Price will be an evaluated factor; however, it will not be adjectively scored. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that contracts be awarded at prices that are fair and reasonable. The USG will evaluate and access the Price Volume VI, to determine price reasonableness. Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

M.3.2.4.2 The USG will evaluate price reasonableness In Accordance With (IAW) FAR 15.404-1(b), the USG may use any one or a combination of the techniques listed at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine the price fair and reasonable. The USG expects adequate price competition (FAR 15.404-1(b) (2) (i), therefore, a comparison will be made of total evaluated prices. However, the USG also reserves the right to require submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data adequate to determine the reasonableness of an offer.

M.3.2.4.3 As part of the evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the USG.

M.3.2.4.4 For evaluation purposes, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated as follows:

M.3.2.4.5 The Soft Client Pricing Model (Attachment 0005) Tabs labeled Base Year, OY 1, OY 2, OY 3, and OY 4 shall multiply the offeror proposed unit prices by the high-end of the USG provided respective quantity ranges (75,000, 150,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000) for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0004 to obtain the Extended Price. CLINs 0009 and 0010 represent a proposed FFP Extended Price. Each Tab shall sum the Extended Prices for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0009 and 0010 to obtain the Total for each of the Period of Performance Years: Base Year Total, Option Year One Total, Option Year Two Total, Option Year Three Total, and Option Year Four Total.

M.3.2.4.6 The Soft Client Pricing Model (Attachment 0005) Summary Tab sums the Base Year, OY 1, OY 2, OY 3, and OY 4 by Extended Prices per quantity range for each CLIN 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0004. The Summary Tab also sums the Base Year, OY 1, OY 2, OY 3, and OY 4 by FFP Extended Prices for CLINs 0009, and 0010. CLINs 0005, 0006, 0007, and 0008 are proposed as a FFP Proposed Total Amount. CLINs 0011 and 0012 are Not Separately Priced. The Proposed Total Amount for all CLINs are summed to calculate the Total Evaluated Price.

M.3.2.4.7 52.245-4007 EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR USE OF USG-OWNED PROPERTY AUG/2007 (ACC-RI)

(a) To eliminate the competitive advantage resulting from the rent-free use of USG-owned property (including real property and production and research property), an evaluation factor calculated in accordance with FAR 52.245-9(e) shall be added to each offer that is predicated on the use of USG-owned property.(b) This evaluation procedure shall not be applicable to any USG-owned property held by the Offeror or its anticipated subcontractors or vendors under a valid lease or rental agreement with the USG whereby the Offeror or its anticipated subcontractors or vendors is granted the right to use such property and must pay a rental fee thereon for the entire leasehold/rental period irrespective of actual usage.

M.4 Definitions

Adverse Past Performance - Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPPIS.”

Best Value- means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the USG’s estimation provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirements.

Clarifications- are limited exchanges between the USG and Offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated

Communications- are exchanges, between the USG and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the Competitive Range

Competitive Range- See FAR 15.306 (c)

Deficiency - is a material failure of a proposal to meet a USG requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

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

Evaluation Notice- is the Contracting Officers written notification to the Offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions.

Finding - A “finding” is a “term of art” used in the Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool (ASSIST). A finding is the identification and documentation by the USG evaluation team of a specific individual aspect (positive or negative) of a proposal. It is accomplished by assessing the aspect (positive or negative) of a proposal against the USG’s requirements using the evaluation criteria as the measuring tools. The ASSIST provides capability for eleven different types of findings which are defined below.

Minor or Clerical Error - A minor non-price/price factor informality or irregularity that is merely a matter of form and not of substance or a clerical error apparent on its face in the proposal.

Past Performance Relevancy Concern - An aspect of the proposal that raises a question about the relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance information.

Risk - as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased USG oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Strength – An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance for capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the USG during contract performance.

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

Strength- is 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 USG during contract performance.

Terms and Conditions - An issue related to any of the solicitation provisions.

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

Uncertainty - Any aspect of a non- 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 - means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.