W56HZV22R0062-0004.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code Page Of

2. Amendment/Modification No.

3. Effective Date

4. Requisition/Purchase Req No.

5. Project No. (If applicable)

6. Issued By Code 7. Administered By (If other than Item 6) Code

8. Name And Address Of Contractor (No., Street, City, County, State and Zip Code)

9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.

9B. Dated (See Item 11)

10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

10B. Dated (See Item 13) Code Facility Code

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning ____________ copies of the amendments: (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. Accounting And Appropriation Data (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS

It Modifies The Contract/Order No. As Described In Item 14.

A. This Change Order is Issued Pursuant To: The Changes Set Forth In Item 14 Are Made In

The Contract/Order No. In Item 10A.

B. The Above Numbered Contract/Order Is Modified To Reflect The Administrative Changes (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) Set

Forth In Item 14, Pursuant To The Authority of FAR 43.103(b).

C. This Supplemental Agreement Is Entered Into Pursuant To Authority Of:

D. Other (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return _______________ copies to the Issuing Office.

14. Description Of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. Name And Title Of Signer (Type or print)

16A. Name And Title Of Contracting Officer (Type or print)

15B. Contractor/Offeror 15C. Date Signed 16B. United States Of America 16C. Date Signed

By (Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

30-105-02 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SEE SCHEDULE

X

Cost Plus Fixed Fee

0004 2023JAN09

W56HZV

ACC-DTA

6501 E. 11 MILE RD.

DETROIT ARSENAL, MI 48397-5000

JESSICA D. WITTENBERG

EMAIL: JESSICA.D.WITTENBERG.CIV@ARMY.MIL

W56HZV-22-R-0062

2022DEC02

X

X

/SIGNED/

2 signed

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

1 8

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued Page of

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Buyer Name: JESSICA D. WITTENBERG

Buyer Office Symbol/Telephone Number: CCTA-HTA-A/(586)282-4010

Type of Contract 1: Cost Plus Fixed Fee

Kind of Contract: Service Contracts

*** End of Narrative A0000 ***

The purpose of Amendment 0004 to Solicitation W56HZV-22-R-0062 is as follows:

1. Revise the language in Section M.4.3.1 as follows:

FROM:

M.4.3.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror's approach to achieving the Government's objective of providing opportunities in meeting the small business participation goals identified in this solicitation. The evaluation 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 goals for this solicitation. During its evaluation the Government will check for consistency within the proposal, and any inconsistencies found may impact the assessed credibility of the offerors proposed goal(s) and/or the offerors rating in this

Factor. As part of this assessment and based on the information submitted IAW L.4.3, 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 solicitation goals are expressed as a percentage of 'Total Contract Amount', which is defined for this Small Business Participation

Factor as total proposed labor cost for ordering periods 1 through 5 as calculated in Cell B49 of the 'Totals' Tab of the offeror's proposed Pricing Matrix (Attachment 0012). The Government's small business participation goals for this solicitation are:

17.1_ % Small Business (SB)

2.6_ % Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

2.6_ % Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB)

1.6_ % Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB)

1.6_ % Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

1.6_ % Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

For Other Than Small Business offerors ONLY, the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) goal is BOTH of the following:

2.6_% of 'Total Contract Amount'

5.0_% of 'Total Subcontracting Amount'

TO:

M.4.3.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror's approach to achieving the Government's objective of providing opportunities in meeting the small business participation goals identified in this solicitation. The evaluation 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 goals for this solicitation. During its evaluation the Government will check for consistency within the proposal, and any inconsistencies found may impact the assessed credibility of the offerors proposed goal(s) and/or the offerors rating in this

Factor. As part of this assessment and based on the information submitted IAW L.4.3, 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 ________________ solicitation goals are expressed as a percentage of 'Total Contract Amount', which is defined for this Small Business Participation____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Factor as total proposed costs as calculated in Cell B49 of the 'Totals' Tab of Attachment 0012 GFPM. The Government's small business______________________________________________________________________________________________________ participation goals for this solicitation are:

17.1_ % Small Business (SB)

2.6_ % Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

2.6_ % Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB)

1.6_ % Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB)

1.6_ % Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

1.6_ % Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

For Other Than Small Business offerors ONLY, the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) goal is BOTH of the following:

2.6_% of 'Total Contract Amount'

5.0_% of 'Total Subcontracting Amount'

2 8

W56HZV-22-R-0062

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

2. Except as provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged.

*** END OF NARRATIVE A0005 ***

3 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Basis of Award

M.1.1 The Government intends to award a single-award Indefinite Delivery - Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract as a result of this solicitation. An award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the

Government and who is eligible for award in accordance with the criteria set forth below.

M.1.1.1 There are three evaluation factors:

a. Technical Experience

b. Cost/Price

c. Small Business Participation

The relative order of importance of these Factors is described in Section M.4 below.

M.1.1.2 Contract award will be made utilizing the source selection trade-off process, considering the evaluation Factors and their relative order of importance (see Section M.4), to identify the proposal which represents the best value and is most advantageous to the

Government. The Government will weigh the evaluation factors (other than the Cost Factor) against the total evaluated cost to the

Government. As part of the best value determination, the relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal shall be considered in selecting the offer that is most advantageous and represents the best overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to choose not to award a contract if such action is in the Government's best interest.

M.1.1.3 Importance of Cost/Price. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government and is otherwise eligible for award. This may not be the offeror with the lowest total evaluated cost/price. However, the closer offeror's evaluations are to each other in those Factors other than the Cost/Price Factor, the more important cost/price becomes in the decision.

Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the four evaluation Factors stated herein, cost/price may be controlling when:

a. Proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-price factors; or

b. An otherwise superior proposal is unaffordable; or

c. The advantages of a higher rated, higher priced proposal are not considered to be worth the price premium.

M.1.2 Eligibility for Award. Award will only be made to an offeror who is eligible for award. To be eligible for award:

a) The offeror must be determined responsible (See Section M.3.5); and

b) The offeror must have an adequate Cost Accounting System (See Section L.5.5); and

c) The proposal must not contain a Deficiency(s) (per FAR Part 15.001); and

d) The offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) - see provision 52.204-7; and

M.2 Rejection of Offers

M.2.1 The Government may reject any proposal if it is in the Government's best interest to do so at any time after receipt of proposals.

Examples of grounds for rejection include, but are not limited to:

a) The proposal fails to meaningfully respond to the instructions in Section L of the solicitation (i.e. a proposal provides some data but omits significant material data and information required by Section L, fails to follow proposal key proposal instructions or format requirements in Section L, etc.);

b) The proposal 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 and does not provide support and elaboration as specified in Section L of the solicitation;

c) The proposal reflects an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the solicitation requirements due to the offeror's unrealistic technical terms or schedule commitments;

d) The proposal contains exceptions to the RFP requirements, attachments, exhibits, enclosures, or solicitation terms and conditions;

e) The proposal contains one or more Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) that cannot be avoided or mitigated. Please refer to

Section L paragraph L.2.4 of this solicitation, "Organizational Conflict of Interest";

f) The proposal is unbalanced as to price. An unbalanced offer is one which is based on costs or prices significantly high or low for one given period versus another period. There must be a direct relationship between the effort expended and its price for each CLIN;

g) The proposal's acceptance period does not meet the Government's required minimum acceptance period, or the offeror fails to provide a proposal acceptance period (Refer to Section L.1.2);

h) The proposal is not in English (American Standard) or in US Dollars; or

4 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

i) The proposal submitted is for less than all the requirements called for by the solicitation.

M.3 Evaluation and Source Selection Process

M.3.1 Compliance Review. After receipt of proposals, but prior to the evaluation process, the Government will perform a compliance review of the offerors proposal to determine the extent of compliance to the solicitation instructions, and whether the proposal meets any of the conditions listed in M.2, Rejection of Offerors.

M.3.2 Evaluation Process. Selection of the successful offeror will be made following an assessment of each proposal not otherwise rejected, based on the response to the information called for in Section L of the RFP, and against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria described herein. Proposals not otherwise rejected will be evaluated as specified herein, to include developing narrative support for the evaluation conclusions under each Factor. The Government reserves the right to reject offers in accordance with solicitation provision Rejection of Offers above.

M.3.3 Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the Government official designated to direct the source selection process and select the offeror for contract award.

M.3.4 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). An SSEB has been established by the Government to evaluate proposals in response to the solicitation. The SSEB is comprised of technically qualified individuals who have been selected to conduct this evaluation in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. All proposals not otherwise rejected will be given careful, full, and impartial consideration by a team of Government personnel in the evaluation pursuant to the criteria in the solicitation.

M.3.5 Award without Discussions. This RFP includes FAR Provision 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition, in

Section L, which advises offerors that the Government intends to make award without conducting discussions. Where awards will be made without discussions, exchanges with offerors are limited to Clarifications, as defined in FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a Price and non-Price Factor standpoint. However, under FAR 52.215-

1(f)(4), the Government reserves the right to hold discussions, if necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the

Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M.3.6 Determination of Responsibility. Per FAR Part 9.103, a contract will be placed only with the offeror that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. Prospective offeror(s), in order to qualify as sources for this acquisition, must be able to demonstrate that they meet standards of responsibility set forth in FAR Part 9.104. In addition, the Government may assess the offeror's financial and management capabilities to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey on any or all offeror(s) or their subcontractors to aid the Contracting Officer in the evaluation of each offeror's proposal and ensure that the selected offeror is responsible. No award can be made to an offeror who has been determined to be not responsible by the

Contracting Officer. To make sure that an offeror meets the responsibility criteria at FAR Part 9.104, the Government may:

a) Arrange a visit to an offeror's facility and perform a necessary Pre-Award Survey. The offeror's refusal to authorize the Government to visit the offeror's facility may result in a determination that the offeror is not responsible.

And/or

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

M.3.7 Consistency. Each volume of the offeror's proposal shall be consistent with the other proposal volumes and shall demonstrate the understanding and ability to perform according to the statement of work of the contract. The offeror should provide supporting documentation in sufficient detail to permit a complete evaluation of the proposal. The Government may conduct a crosswalk between the information provided in an offeror's proposal volumes to assess whether the offeror submits consistent proposal information. 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 assessed an increased risk in one or more Factors and/or being ineligible for award.

M.4 Evaluation Criteria

There are three evaluation factors:

a) Technical

b) Cost

c) Small Business Participation

5 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

The relative order of importance of these three evaluation factors is as follows: Technical Experience is significantly more important than Cost/Price, which is significantly more important than Small Business Participation. The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor.

M.4.1 Volume I: Technical Experience Factor the Technical Experience Factor is comprised of three Subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Experience with Watercraft Vessel Subsystem Design and Development;

Subfactor 2: Experience with Development of drawings in accordance with ASME Y14.100, including applicable appendices and referenced standards; and

Subfactor 3: Experience with Development and delivery of both (i) a FMECA (LSA-056) report for a subsystem of a major component of an end item in accordance with ANSI/AIAA S-102.2.4; SAE-GEIA-HB-0007; SAE-GEIA-STD-0007; and SAE-TA-STD-0017, and (ii) a LORA report developed for a subsystem of a major component of an end item in accordance with SAE-AS1390 and SAE-TA-STD-0017.

Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2, which is approximately equal to Subfactor 3.

M.4.1.1 The Technical Experience Factor and Subfactors will assess the risk associated with the offeror successfully performing the required effort based on the recent technical experience identified and substantiated in the offeror's proposal, and the extent to which the recent technical experience is comparable to each of the respective Subfactors in Section L.4.1.2, Section L.4.1.3, and Section

L.4.1.4. For the Technical Experience Factor and Subfactors, the Government will consider whether, and the extent to which, the technical experience cited in the offeror's proposal will be employed or realized should the offeror subsequently be awarded a contract.

Accordingly, any technical experience which is identified in the offeror's Technical Experience Factor proposal that is not supported with the information requested in the performance approach may be discounted in whole or in part, which may result in the offeror being assessed with higher risk. In addition, if any proposal volume indicates the cited technical experience is not intended to be used by the offeror during contract performance, the cited technical experience may also be discounted in whole or in part, which may result in the offeror being assessed with higher risk. When assessing the risk associated with recent comparable technical experience to each of the three Subfactors, more comparable substantiated technical experience will be assessed as lower risk, which may be assessed as (a) strength(s), while less comparable substantiated technical experience will be assessed as higher risk, which may be assessed as (a) weakness(es). Technical experience that is not comparable, not substantiated, or not demonstrated in the proposal will represent the highest level of risk to the Government, which may also be assessed as (a) weakness(es). Any technical experience identified in the offeror's technical experience factor proposal that is not supported with the information requested in Section L.4 Technical Experience instructions may be discounted in whole or in part, which may result in the proposal being assessed with higher risk.

M.4.1.2 Subfactor 1: Watercraft Vessel Subsystem Design and Development (Reference L.4.1.2).

M.4.1.2.1 The Government will assess the risk associated with the offeror successfully performing the required effort and the extent to which the offeror's recent technical experience is comparable to the Government's requirement, based on the recent contract information and supporting narrative provided in the proposal. The Government will consider technical experience specific to Army watercraft vessels managed by Product Manager, Army Watercraft Systems to be more comparable than technical experience related to Navy watercraft or other

Government vessels, which is more comparable than technical experience on commercial vessels or other maritime platforms. The Government may consider more complex watercraft vessel subsystem design and development experience as lower risk and may assign a strength(s).

Proposals that only provide a written narrative and do not provide the requested recent contract information may be insufficient to substantiate comparability to this Subfactor.

M.4.1.3 Subfactor 2: Development of drawings in accordance with ASME Y14.100, including applicable appendices and referenced standards

(Reference L.4.1.3).

M.4.1.3.1 The Government will evaluate, based on examination of the totality of the proposed drawing sheet artifacts, the extent to which the artifacts demonstrate comparability of the offeror's recent technical experience to the following criteria, and the risk associated with the offeror successfully performing the required effort. The Government will not evaluate or consider conformance to the contract requirements under which the work products were developed in this evaluation.:

(i) Inclusion of basic drawing formatting, including parts list(s) (as applicable), general notes, fully dimensioned views (for detail and installation drawings), revision blocks, and title blocks.

(ii) Numbering, coding, and identification requirements of ASME Y14.100 Appendix D, especially requirements for Item Identification, contained in paragraph D-10, and References to Items, contained in paragraph D-11.

(iii) Use of source control and vendor item control drawings to identify requirements for commercial and vendor developed items.

(iv) Use of Government and nongovernment standardization documents, other than company-proprietary documents, to define parts, including part numbering requirements of standardization documents.

6 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

(v) Use of detail drawings, or detailed views of fabricated parts appearing on other drawing types, to fully define fabricated parts, including all necessary requirements (e.g., dimensions, tolerances, material specifications, protective finishes, etc.) in accordance with ASME Y14.5 (except fractional-inch dimensions are permitted).

M.4.1.3.2 If drawings submitted in accordance with Section L.4.1.3.1, when evaluated as a whole, fail to substantiate recent experience with any of the criteria listed in Sections M.4.1.3.1(i) through M.4.1.3.1(v) above, the Government will assess the offeror with higher risk (weakness(es)). However, if individual drawings submitted in accordance with Section L.4.1.3.1 fail to substantiate recent experience with any of the criteria listed in Sections M.4.1.3.1(i) through M.4.1.3.1(v) above, the Government will NOT assess the offeror with higher risk (weakness(es)), if other submitted drawings do substantiate such experience. For example, a drawing demonstrating conformance to Section M.4.1.3.1(i) and Section M.4.1.3.1(ii), but failing to demonstrate conformance to Section

M.4.1.3.1(v) when applicable, will not result in a weakness so long as other individual drawings do demonstrate conformance to

M.4.1.3.1(v). Individual drawings that consistently demonstrate conformance to all of the applicable criteria for the drawing type

(i.e., most or all drawings demonstrate conformance to all applicable requirements), will be assessed as lower risk and may be assigned additional strength(s).

M.4.1.3.3 Proposals that only provide the requested recent contract information without artifacts will be insufficient to substantiate comparability to this Subfactor.

M.4.1.4 Subfactor 3: Development of both (i) a FMECA (LSA-056) report for a subsystem of a major component of an end item in accordance with ANSI/AIAA S-102.2.4; SAE-GEIA-HB-0007; SAE-GEIA-STD-0007; and SAE-TA-STD-0017 and (ii) a LORA report developed for a subsystem of a major component of an end item in accordance with SAE-AS1390 and SAE-TA-STD-0017 (Reference L.4.1.4).

M.4.1.4.1 The Government will assess, based on the submitted FMECA (LSA 056) report and LORA report artifacts, the extent to which the offeror's technical experience is comparable to the Government's requirement, based on the following criteria:

i) Application of ANSI/AIAA S-102.2.4; SAE-GEIA-HB-0007; SAE-GEIA-STD-0007; and SAE-TA-STD-0017, to the development of the FMECA (LSA-

056) report.

ii) Application of SAE-AS1390 and SAE-TA-STD-0017 to the development of the LORA report. The Government will not evaluate or consider conformance to the contract requirements under work products developed as part of its evaluation.

M.4.1.4.2. In general, the more compliant the FMECA or LORA artifacts are to the criteria set forth in this subfactor, the greater the technical experience will be considered comparable to the Government's requirement, which may result in lower risk and may be assigned strength(s). Inversely, the less compliant the FMECA or LORA artifacts are to the criteria set forth in this subfactor, the technical experience will be considered less comparable to the Government's requirement, which may result in higher risk and may be assigned a weakness(s).

M.4.1.4.3 Proposals that only provide the requested recent contract information without artifacts will be insufficient to substantiate comparability to this Subfactor.

M.4.1.5 The Government reserves the right to contact the references in Attachment 0011, Technical Experience Matrix and may also utilize internal Government databases and/or contact internal Government or private sources with knowledge of the Technical Experience cited in the offeror's proposal, and use that information in the evaluation.

M.4.2 Cost Factor

The Government will evaluate the Cost Factor, as follows:

M.4.2.1 The cost evaluation will result in the development of the total evaluated price to the USG. The USG will also evaluate the offerors cost proposal for price reasonableness, cost realism, and unbalanced pricing. The total evaluated price may differ from the total proposed price. The total evaluated price, rather than the total proposed price, shall be used in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value.

M.4.2.2 The total proposed price is identified within the Totals tab of Attachment 0012 - GFPM of the offerors proposal per instructions from the attachment.

M.4.2.3 The total evaluated price equals the most probable cost to the Government. The most probable cost to the Government will consist of the offerors total proposed price PLUS or Minus any cost realism adjustments made to the cost-reimbursement CLINs IAW the USG Cost

Realism analysis (detailed in Section M.4.2.7 below).

M.4.2.4 The total proposed price and total evaluated price will not include the proposed cost for DBA Insurance. The proposed cost for

DBA Insurance will also not be evaluated for price reasonableness, cost realism, or unbalanced pricing.

M.4.2.5 The USG shall evaluate whether or not the offerors proposed price is reasonable. A price 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 USG may make a determination of reasonableness by any means allowable under FAR 15.404-1.

7 8

Name of Offeror or Contractor:

PIIN/SIIN MOD/AMD

M.4.2.6 The USG will verify that the offerors proposed fee meets the requirements of 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(c) "for other cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, the fee shall not exceed 10 percent of the contract's estimated cost, excluding fee." If the offerors proposed fee does not meet the requirements of 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(c), the offerors proposal will be ineligible for award.

M.4.2.7 Cost Realism. For the Cost-reimbursement CLINs (excluding the DBA CLINs), the USG shall evaluate cost realism by independently reviewing and evaluating the specific elements of the offerors proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic. The result of the realism evaluation will be a determination of the most probable cost to the USG (which consists of cost and fee) of performance for the offeror. The most probable cost to the USG will be determined by adjusting the offeror's proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

M.4.2.8 The USG will verify that all direct labor rates proposed by the prime AND its subcontractors are at or above the direct labor floor rates as specified in paragraph L.4.2.1.5 of this solicitation. If any of the proposed direct labor rates by either the prime or any of its subcontractors are below of the USG established direct labor floor rates, then the GFPM will automatically increase the proposed direct labor rate to the USG established floor rate. Offerors are reminded that they are responsible for ensuring that any and all subcontractors provide a full and complete labor rate build that provides complete transparency for the direct labor rate component, and each indirect rate applied to it, along with the profit or fee, regardless of contract type.

M.4.2.9 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will evaluate the offerors proposal for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal the USG assesses to be unbalanced as to price, may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for more information on unbalanced pricing.

M.4.3 Volume III: Small Business Participation Factor

M.4.3.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror's approach to achieving the Government's objective of providing opportunities in meeting the small business participation goals identified in this solicitation. The evaluation 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 goals for this solicitation. During its evaluation the Government will check for consistency within the proposal, and any inconsistencies found may impact the assessed credibility of the offerors proposed goal(s) and/or the offerors rating in this

Factor. As part of this assessment and based on the information submitted IAW L.4.3, 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 solicitation goals are expressed as a percentage of 'Total Contract Amount', which is defined for this Small Business Participation

Factor as total proposed costs as calculated in Cell B49 of the 'Totals' Tab of Attachment 0012 GFPM. The Government's small business participation goals for this solicitation are:

17.1_ % Small Business (SB)

2.6_ % Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

2.6_ % Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB)

1.6_ % Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB)

1.6_ % Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

1.6_ % Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

For Other Than Small Business offerors ONLY, the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) goal is BOTH of the following:

2.6_% of 'Total Contract Amount'

5.0_% of 'Total Subcontracting Amount'

M.4.3.2 Assessment of Proposed Goals Above or Below Government Goals.

Where the offeror proposes small business participation higher than the Government's 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 goals, the Government may assign the offeror a strength against such proposal. Where the offeror proposes small business participation lower than the Government's goals, or where the offeror is assessed as not credibly being able to achieve the

Government's goals, the Government may assign a weakness or significant weakness against such proposal.

*** END OF NARRATIVE M0001 ***

8 8