DRAFT_Section_M.docx

Distribution Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

DRAFT Section M - Evaluation factors for award

M.1 Basis of Award

M.1.1 The Government intends to award one seven-year (5 years plus 2 option years) Requirements contract which will utilize both FFP and CPFF CLINs. The FFP CLINs include vehicles (with the option to procure additional installed kits), packaged kits, Program Support, Logistics Program Management, Integrated Product Support, Test Logistics Support, and Test Support. The CPFF CLINs include STS, MTR, and TPF support efforts.

The Government will select for award the proposal which represents the best value to the Government as described below.

M.2 Rejection of Offers

Offerors shall carefully read, understand, and provide all the information requested in the Proposal Preparation Instructions and Content contained in Section L. In accordance with clause FAR 52.215-1 (ALT I) contained in this solicitation, the Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government’s interests. The circumstances which may lead to the rejection of a proposal include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) The proposal fails to meaningfully respond to the Proposal Preparation Instructions specified in Section L of this solicitation. Examples of failure to meaningfully respond include:

(1) When a proposal merely offers to perform work according to the RFP terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the RFP terms and does not provide support and elaboration as specified in Section L of this solicitation.

(2) A proposal fails to provide any of the data and information required in Section L.

(3) A proposal provides some data but omits significant material data and information required by Section L.

(4) A proposal merely repeats the contract statement of work without elaboration.

(b) The proposal contains unbalanced pricing as defined in Clause 52.215-1 and paragraph M.4.3.1.3.2.

(c) The proposal price is unaffordable, per M.3.2.

(d) The proposal offers a product or service that does not meet all stated material requirements of the solicitation.

(e) The Offeror proposes exceptions to the attachments, exhibits, enclosures, or other RFP terms and conditions.

(f) The Offeror proposes performance below threshold performance for any Performance Specification identified in L.4.1.

M.3 Evaluation and Source Selection Process

The evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this solicitation, and source selection, shall be conducted using a tradeoff process to obtain the best value to the Government. Proposals which are eligible for award will be subject to the Source Selection Tradeoff process, considering both the evaluation Factors and their relative order of importance as cited in Section M.4, to identify the proposal which represents the best value to the Government. The Government will weigh the evaluated proposals (other than the Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEC/P) Factor) against the TEC/P to the Government. As part of the best value determination, in selecting the offer that is most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government, the relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each Offeror’s proposal will be considered, as specified below, in addition to the other evaluation methods described below. Selection of the successful Offeror shall be made following an assessment of each proposal, based on the response to the information requested in Section L of this solicitation and against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria described in Section M.

M.3.1 Importance of Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEC/P)

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government. This determination may result in award to other than the Offeror with the lowest TEC/P. However, the closer Offerors evaluations are in Factors, other than the TEC/P Factor, the more important TEC/P becomes in the decision. Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the four evaluation Factors as stated, TEC/P may be the controlling Factor when:

(a) proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-TEC/P factors; or

(b) an otherwise superior proposal is unaffordable; or

(c) the advantages of a higher rated, higher TEC/P proposal are not considered to be worth the TEC/P premium

M.3.2 Affordability

The Government will review the Offerors Contract Cost/Price Proposal to verify the Offerors proposal is affordable. No proposal will be considered for award if unaffordable. Affordability will be calculated by Attachment 0036, Pricing Matrix, based on (1) the Governments Available Funding (M.3.2.1) and (2) the Average Unit Manufacturing Cost (AUMC) (M.3.2.2). Failure to meet either of the Affordability requirements described in M.3.2.1 and M.3.2.2 below will render an offeror ineligible for award.

M.3.2.1 Available Funding

Proposed prices which result in exceeding any of the Then-Year Dollars (TY$) affordability limits in Ordering Years 01 and 02 as identified in Attachment 0036, Pricing Matrix will be considered unaffordable and ineligible for award.

M.3.2.2 Average Unit Manufacturing Cost (AUMC)

A proposal containing an AUMC greater than the values shown below in Then Year Dollars, calculated in Attachment 0036, Pricing Matrix, for Ordering Years 03, 04, 05 and Option Years 06, and 07, will be considered unaffordable and ineligible for award. AUMC is defined as average cost to the Government to buy FMTV vehicle configurations. The unit manufacturing cost reflects the projected vehicle contract price for each FMTV configuration to include all direct and indirect cost. The unit manufacturing costs includes all overheads applicable to vehicle contract prices including General and Administrative (G&A), Cost of Money, and Profit. Non-recurring costs must be accounted for and may be amortized over the vehicle quantity buy. The recurring costs include the costs of material, labor, and other expenses incurred in the fabrication, checkout, and processing of parts, subassemblies, and major assemblies and subsystems needed for the final system. The manufacturing cost also includes recurring costs of subcontractors and purchased parts and equipment. The manufacturing cost further includes recurring costs of the efforts to integrate and assemble the various subassemblies into a working system, recurring costs to install special and general equipment, and recurring costs to paint and package the system for shipment to its acceptance destination. It also includes moves in order to assemble into a final system. This is the price of the vehicle rolling off the line in its basic configuration, before B-Kit (Supplemental Armor Kit) or other kits, as defined in the Purchase Specification - FMTV (Attachment 0001) are added.

TY19$ (OY03) - $335,448

TY20$ (OY04) - $340,790

TY21$ (OY05) - $347,449

TY22$ (OY06 Option) - $354,236 TY23$ (OY07 Option) - $361,350

M.3.3 Source Selection Authority (SSA)

The SSA is the official designated to direct the source selection process and select the Offeror for contract award.

M.3.4 Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)

A SSAC will provide a written comparative analysis of the proposals and an award recommendation for the SSA prior to the selection decision.

M.3.5 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

A SSEB has been established by the Government to evaluate proposals in response to this solicitation. The SSEB is comprised of technically qualified individuals who have been selected to conduct an evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed for this solicitation. Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received in response to this solicitation.

M.3.6 Determination of Responsibility

Per FAR 9.103, a contract will be placed only with an Offeror that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. A prospective Offeror, in order to be eligible for award for this acquisition, must be able to demonstrate it meets the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. As a part of this determination, the Contracting Officer may utilize the Offeror's proposed prices, as well as other information, to determine if the prospective contractor has adequate financial resources to perform the contract. The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey on any or all Offeror(s) or its subcontractors to aid the Contracting Officer in the evaluation of each Offeror's proposal and ensure a selected Offeror is responsible.

Additional requirements of responsibility for this contract are the necessary Defense Security Service (DSS) Facility Clearances (See L.2.5).

No award can be made to an Offeror who has been determined to be not responsible by the Contracting Officer.

To verify an Offeror meets the responsibility criteria at FAR 9.104, the Government reserves the right to request additional information, to include, but not limited to the following:

(a) arrange a visit to the offeror(s) plant and perform a necessary Pre-Award Survey; or

(b) request an Offeror provide financial, technical, production, or managerial background information. If the requested information is not submitted within seven working days from the date of the receipt of the request, or if an Offeror refuses to provide the Government access to its facility, the Government may determine the Offeror to be non-responsible. If the Government visits the Offeror's facility, the offeror shall ensure current data relevant to the proposal is available for Government personnel to review.

M.3.7 Consistency

The Government may conduct a crosswalk between the Offerors proposal volumes to assess whether the Offeror submits consistent proposal information as required by L.2.6. Any inconsistency between proposal volumes, which indicates the offeror has an inherent misunderstanding of the requirements or an inability to perform the resultant contract, may result in an offeror being determined ineligible for award or being assessed with increased risk in the Technical, or Small Business Participation Factors.

M.4 Evaluation Factors

The Government will assess each Offeror in five factors: (1) Technical; (2) Technical Maturity; (3) Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEC/P); (4) Past Performance; and (4) Small Business Participation. The Technical Factor is further divided into Subfactors as described in M.4.1

Of the evaluation factors, Technical is slightly more important than Technical Maturity, which is more important than Price, which is more important than Past Performance, which is significantly more important than Small Business Participation.

M.4.1 Technical Factor

The Offerors Technical Volume will be evaluated in four (4) Subfactors:

1) Payload – PS Requirement FMTV-PS-R-216

2) Survivability - PS Requirement FMTV-PS_R-125.

3) Ride Quality - PS Requirement FMTV-PS-R-181 - 186,192

4) Mobility - PS Requirement FMTV-PS-R-177,178

Of the Technical Subfactors, Subfactor 1 – Payload is more important than Subfactor 2 – Survivability, which is more important than Subfactor 3 – Ride Quality, which is more important than Subfactor 4 – Mobility.

The Government will determine the technical merit of the Offeror’s proposal by considering the proposed performance in relation to the four Technical Subfactors described in Attachment 0046, Performance Requirements Matrix. The proposed performance provided in response to Attachment 0046, Performance Requirements Matrix will be incorporated into any resultant contract and the proposed levels of performance will become contract requirements.

M.4.1.1 The Government will evaluate the following information to assess the Offeror’s proposed approach in response to paragraph L.4:

a. The Offeror’s proposed level of performance in Attachment 0046, Performance Requirements Matrix, for each Technical Subfactor (L.4.1)

b. The Offeror’s data and information that substantiates their proposed level of performance for each Technical Subfactor identified in Attachment 0046, Performance Requirements Matrix.

c. The Offeror’s narrative explaining the extent of variation, if any, of the Offeror’s design from an existing design and the impact such variances have on the total design (L.4.1.8).

M.4.1.2 The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Performance Levels, relative to the four considerations listed in M.4.1 as follows:

a. The Government will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed performance levels credibly satisfy the objective performance levels.

And

b. The proposal risk probability that the Offeror will achieve the proposed performance levels, to include achieving proposed performance above threshold levels where offered.

M.4.1.3 Evaluation of Objective Performance. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror credibly proposes to achieve the objective performance levels, as identified in Attachment 0046, FMTVA2 Performance Requirements Matrix.

M.4.1.3.1 If the Government evaluation shows that an Offeror has demonstrated, in accordance with Section M evaluation criteria, that an Offeror is likely to achieve an objective performance level, at moderate risk or lower, in whole or in part (to the benefit of the Government), it shall be noted as a Factor strength. Strengths may also result in an increase in the assigned rating for the Factor and Subfactor.

M.4.1.3.2 If Government evaluation of the proposal indicates achievement of the proposed objective performance level is likely, at moderate risk or lower, the proposed level of objective performance will be included in any resulting contract. In the event an Offeror does not agree to incorporate the proposed above Threshold level of performance into the resulting contract, the Offeror will not be credited, in whole or in part, with their achievement of the Objective Performance Level.

M.4.1.3.3 For the objective performance being evaluated, and where detailed in M.4.2, evaluation credit may be given for proposed performance above the threshold performance requirement level up to the objective level of performance. For proposed performance between the threshold level of performance and the objective level of performance, a proportional credit may be given to the extent that the proposed level of performance is achievable at moderate, or lower, risk, and benefits the Government.

M.4.1.3.4 To receive Objective Performance evaluation credit, the Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate to the Government that the proposed Objective Performance level is achievable at moderate, or lower, risk. Proposed achievement of an Objective Performance level will be assessed as Moderate Risk where the proposed approach provides a solution that is moderate or lower risk and is likely to result in achievement of the proposed objective Performance level. Where the Objective performance level is evaluated as having risk higher than moderate risk for achieving proposed performance, no additional evaluation credit shall be given, nor shall such a proposal be considered a proposal strength or to have benefit to the Government.

M.4.1.3.5 In assessing the risk of meeting the technical considerations, the Offeror’s submitted substantiating data combined with the extent the offered design varies from an existing design will be considered. The more the offered system varies from an existing proven design, the greater the risk.

M.4.1.4 For Payload, the Government will review the substantiating data and OEM or Component Manufacturer certifications to evaluate the risk of meeting the threshold payload requirements and any proposed performance between threshold and objective or at the objective level requirements.

M.4.1.5 For Survivability, the Government will review the substantiating data provided to evaluate the risk of meeting the threshold survivability requirements and any proposed performance between threshold and objective or at the objective level requirements.

M.4.1.6 For Ride Quality, the Government will assemble a vehicle dynamics model of the Offeror’s proposed design to evaluate the risk of meeting the threshold ride quality requirements and any proposed performance between threshold and objective or at the objective level requirements. Offeror must provide data required in Attachment 0052, Vehicle Dynamics Data Sheet, to provide the data necessary for the model.

M.4.1.7 For Mobility, the Government will assemble a mobility model of the Offeror’s proposed design to evaluate the risk of meeting the threshold mobility requirement and any proposed performance between threshold and objective or at the objective level requirement. Offeror must provide data from Attachment 0051, VCI Data Requirement Matrix, to provide data necessary for the model.

M.4.2 Technical Maturity Factor

M.4.2.1 The Government will assess the risk of the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement, the soundness of the Offeror’s technical approach, and performance risk, based on the extent and credibility of the Technical Maturity data provided. This assessment will be based on the proposal information submitted in response to Section L.4.2.1 and L.4.2.2. As information submitted in response to L.4.2.1 will require substantiating data to establish credibility, the Government’s assessment will rely more heavily on the substantiating data submitted in response to L.4.2.2 than on the self-assessment submitted in response to L.4.2.1.

M.4.3 Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEC/P) Factor

The Government will evaluate Offerors for award based on the TEC/P. The TEC/P is equal to the Offeror’s Evaluated Contract Cost/Price as defined by Section M.4.3.1 modified by the Technical Data Package (TDP) Adjustment defined by Section M.4.3.2.

TEC/P = Evaluated Contract Cost/Price (M.4.3.1) - TDP Adjustment (M.4.3.2).

The Total Evaluated Cost/Price may differ from an Offeror’s Proposed Contract Cost/Price. The Total Evaluated Cost/Price, rather than the Offeror’s Proposed Contract Cost/Price, will be used in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value.

M.4.3.1 Evaluated Contract Cost/Price

The Contract Cost/Price evaluation will consider the information submitted in response to Section L.4.3.1 including the top-level spreadsheets. The evaluation of the Offeror’s Proposed Contract Cost/Price will include consideration of the reasonableness of the proposed Firm Fixed Priced and Cost Reimbursement CLINs, and the realism of the Cost Reimbursement CLINs. For Cost Reimbursement CLINs, the Cost Realism assessment will be used to determine the most probable cost to the Government.

The Evaluated Contract Cost/Price will consist of the Contract Cost/Price per M.4.3.1.3 and include any cost realism adjustments (per M.4.3.1.2). The resulting amount is the Evaluated Contract Cost/Price to be used for calculating TEC/P.

M.4.3.1.1 Cost/Price Reasonableness

The Government shall evaluate whether or not the Offeror’s proposed costs and prices are reasonable in accordance with the definition in FAR 15.404-1 and 31.201-3. A price or cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may make a determination of reasonableness by any means allowable under FAR 15.404-1.

M.4.3.1.2 Cost Realism

For CPFF CLINs only, the Government shall evaluate realism by independently reviewing and evaluating the specific elements of the Offeror's proposed cost estimates to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. In the event the Offeror proposes any cost decrements as described in L.4.3.1.4.10, the Government may consider the realism of such decrements in its assessment.

The result of the realism evaluation for the Cost Reimbursement CLINs will be a determination of the most probable cost to the Government (which consists of cost and fee) for performance by the Offeror. The most probable cost will be determined by adjusting the Offeror's proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions to cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. Any cost realism adjustments will be applied at the CLIN.

M.4.3.1.3 Evaluated Contract Cost/Price

The Evaluated Contract Cost/Price will consist of the sum of the evaluated prices for each CLIN found in Attachment 0036, Pricing Matrix. The Cost Reimbursement CLINs are subject to a cost realism adjustment in accordance with M.4.3.1.2 for evaluation purposes.

M.4.3.1.3.1 Weighted Average Unit Price

For CLINs with range pricing, the Government will calculate a weighted average unit price for each CLIN by first multiplying the unit prices proposed for each quantity range by the weighting percentages as stated in Attachment 0036, Pricing Matrix. Weighted average unit prices will be the summation of the proposed unit prices for each range multiplied by the weighting percentages. The total evaluated price of each such CLIN will be based on multiplying the weighted average unit price by the estimated CLIN quantities as stated in Attachment 0036, Pricing Matrix.

M.4.3.1.3.2 Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors should note that pricing will be carefully reviewed to detect proposals that are unbalanced in accordance with Clause 52.215-1(f)(8) as well as between quantity ranges (i.e. one or more ranges have pricing that is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques) and option periods. Unbalanced offers may be determined unacceptable. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for more information on unbalanced offers.

M.4.3.1.4 Evaluated TDP Prices

If the Offeror elects to propose a TDP in response to L.4.3.2, it shall propose a price at contract award. The evaluated TDP price included in the Evaluated Contract Cost/Price will equal the proposed price in Attachment 0036, Pricing Matrix.

M.4.3.1.5 Verification

The Government may request DCAA and DCMA to verify rates and projections. The Government may use other resources in the evaluation of the Offeror’s Proposed Cost/Price.

M.4.3.2 Technical Data Package (TDP) Adjustment

The TDP Adjustment will evaluate information submitted in response to Section L.4.3.2.1 to assess the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed data rights for a Production Level TDP support future full and open competitive acquisitions. The resulting TDP adjustment will be subtracted from the Offerors Evaluated Contract Cost/Price as part of the TEC/P calculation to credit the Offeror for future savings the Government may realize during future competitions through use of a competitive TDP.

The information submitted in response to Section L.4.3.2.1.2 (Attachment 0049, TDP BOM, Part 2) will not be evaluated as part of the TDP Adjustment; however it will be incorporated as an attachment in Section J of the resulting contract. If the TDP Option is exercised, the information provided in Part 2 of Attachment 0049 will be added to the Assertion of Restrictions submitted in response to L.4.3.2.1.2 and DFARS 252.227-7017.

M.4.3.2.1 Technical Data Package (TDP) Adjustment Formula

The TDP Adjustment will be calculated in accordance with one of three scenarios described below. In each scenario, the Offeror’s Proposed TDP Price is defined in M.4.3.1.4.

Scenario One: If the Offeror’s Proposed TDP Price is less than $ 5,000,000, and competitive utility is maintained or improved (see M.4.3.2.1.4), the TDP Adjustment will equal the Government Baseline Savings, IAW M.4.3.2.1.3.

Scenario Two: If the Offeror’s Proposed TDP Price is less than $ 5,000,000, and competitive utility is degraded (see M.4.3.2.1.4), the TDP Adjustment will equal the Offeror’s Proposed TDP Price.

Scenario Three: If the Offeror’s Proposed TDP Price is greater than or equal to $5,000,000, the TDP Adjustment will equal the Offeror’s Proposed TDP Price up to a maximum of $200,000,000 in accordance with the Government baseline savings in M.4.3.2.1.3.

M.4.3.2.1.2 Proposed TDP Price

The Offeror’s proposed TDP price will be evaluated as part of the Total Evaluated Contract Cost/Price calculated under M.4.3. The TDP adjustment conducted in accordance with M.4.3.2 will be considered in the Total Evaluated Contract Cost/Price calculated under M.4.3.

M.4.3.2.1.3 Government Baseline Savings

The Government’s baseline savings is $200,000,000. This baseline savings represents the savings the Government expects to yield if the Offeror’s proposed TDP supports future full and open competitive acquisitions. The baseline savings is calculated as a five percent savings on the Government’s anticipated future acquisitions.

M.4.3.2.1.4 Competitive Utility

The Competitive Utility evaluation represents an assessment of the capability of the Government to utilize the proposed TDP for future competition and will be applied based on the evaluation of the data submitted in Attachment 0049 Part 1 (TDP BOM). The Government will not perform a risk assessment as part of the Competitive Utility evaluation. The evaluation will take into account the quantity of components which the Offeror identifies as Controlled Components, the specific components which the Offeror proposes to be Controlled Components, and the impact of the specific Controlled Components to the competitive utility of the current FMTV Production Level TDP and future competitive procurements.

The following list describes the impact of each component type to Competitive Utility:

· Competitive Rights Component: The most advantageous type of component which affords the Government the most Competitive Utility.

· Controlled Commercial Component: Less advantageous type of component which represents a degradation of Competitive Utility.

· Controlled OEM Component: The least advantageous type of component which represents a severe degradation of Competitive Utility.

In general, Controlled Components are considered less advantageous to the Government and Competitive Rights Components (Government Purpose or Unlimited Rights) are considered more advantageous to the Government. Proposing a TDP with larger quantities of Controlled Components generally will result in degraded competitive utility due to the additional reverse engineering andqualification testing necessary to attain secondary sources to support future full and open competition. Controlled OEM Components are considered to result in a significantly higher degradation to Competitive Utility than Controlled Commercial Components.

M.4.3.3 Declining to Propose Data Rights

An Offeror declining to propose an option for the Government to acquire rights in technical data greater than the rights to which the Government is already entitled, i.e., declining to provide an option to give the Government rights to support competition, will not receive a TDP adjustment. In accordance with 10 USC 2320 and DFARS 227.7103-1 Offerors are not required, either as a condition of being responsive to a solicitation or as a condition for award, to sell or otherwise relinquish to the Government any rights in technical data related to items, components or processes developed exclusively at private expense. An Offeror that does not propose to sell or otherwise relinquish any rights in technical data related to items, components or process developed exclusively at private expense will still be considered responsive.

M.4.4 Past Performance Factor

M.4.4.1 The Past Performance Factor will assess the expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on recent and relevant contract performance. This assessment will result in the application of a Confidence Rating which will be based upon the extent to which recent prior past performance is relevant to the requirements listed in L.4.4.1.

M.4.4.2 Unknown Risk: Offerors without a record of relevant Past Performance, upon which to base a meaningful confidence assessment, will be rated as "Unknown Confidence", which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

M.4.5 Small Business Participation Factor

M.4.5.1 The Government will assess the risk associated with the offeror achieving the Small Business Participation Factor objectives/goals for small businesses in the categories listed below in performance of this contract. The assessment of risk will be based on the extent of small business participation proposed and credibility of the data provided in the proposal measured against the Small Business Participation Factor objectives/goals. As part of this assessment, the Government will consider the Offeror’s performance in complying with past Small Business Subcontracting Plans if they were required on prior contracts. Please note the objectives/goals are expressed as a percentage of ‘Total Contract Amount’, which is defined as total proposed amount for all of the Basic CLINs and all of the Option CLINs. The Government’s objectives/goals for this solicitation are:

11.4% Small Business (SB) 1.6% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 1.6% Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) 0.9% Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB) 0.9% Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) 0.9% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

M.4.5.2 Assessment of Proposed Goals Above or Below Government Objectives/Goals.

Where the offeror proposes small business participation higher than the Government’s objectives/goals and the Government has determined that achievement of said small business participation is credible, or where the offeror is assessed as credibly being able to achieve or exceed the Government’s objectives/goals, the Government may assign the offeror a strength against its proposal. Where the offeror proposes small business participation lower than the Government’s objectives/goals, or where the offeror is assessed as not credibly being able to achieve the Government’s objectives/goals, the Government may assign a weakness or significant weakness against its proposal.

M.4.5.3 Contractual Goals.

Regardless of whether the Offeror proposed goals above, at, or below the Government’s solicitation objectives/goals, the proposed goals will be incorporated into the contract. If the awardee is other than a small business, the data submitted as part of the Small Business Participation Factor shall be consistent with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan which will be incorporated in the resultant contract.