Attachment 0007 Word version L ES Sustainment IDIQ_011321.pdf

17 November 2020 Soldier Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS)

Sustainment Engineering Services Solicitation W58RGZ-20-R-0305

Section L - Instructions to Offerors

1. GENERAL. The RFP will be open for 38 days. Proposals are due by 12 Noon CST, on 14 January 2021 to the Contract Specialist (KS) with the Contracting Officer (KO) on

CC.

KS: Charnis C. Boards-Bailey, email address: Charnis.C.BoardsBailey.civ@mail.mil

KO: Gregory A. Wilson, email address: Gregory.A.Wilson12.civ@mail.mil

The Government intends to award on a competitive basis a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Small Business Set-aside contract for Sustainment Engineering and Technical Support. The Government also intends to award in conjunction with that award a Task Order to the offeror that is awarded the IDIQ contract. The Government intends to issue the IDIQ contract and task order to the offeror whose proposal provides Best Value to the Government based on Source Selection Procedures. Interested parties must submit a proposal in response to this solicitation in order to be eligible for contract award. Responsive proposals shall address all Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and criteria set forth in Instructions to Offerors section and Evaluation Factors section.

The Government will provide the offeror the labor categories and the number of estimated labor hours in the RFP for the FFP Sustainment Engineering and Technical Support IDIQ contract. The Government will also provide the offeror “plug in numbers” to be used for travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) in the Cost Reimbursable Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs).

In response, for the IDIQ contract, the offerors shall propose their fully burdened FFP hourly labor rates for the Government specified labor categories and hours, for this Sustainment Engineering and Technical Support IDIQ contract.

Offerors may deviate from the Government provided labor mix (e.g. propose more or less hours for a certain labor category and/or propose other labor categories to perform the PWS). Any deviations must be explained in the Basis for Estimate. Offerors shall not deviate from the Travel and ODC costs provided. Offers shall include the application of all applicable burden rates to the Travel and ODC costs.

For the Task Order (TO) the offerors shall submit proposals based on the labor categories and the number of hours it estimates that will be required to perform the task using the labor rates/labor categories proposed in the IDIQ contracts.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) INDUSTRY QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

The Government will only accept written questions regarding this Request for Proposal (RFP). Verbal questions will not be accepted nor answered. Question are due by 21 December 2020, 4PM CST. Interested parties shall submit questions regarding this solicitation by electronic mail to the KS (listed above) with their company name and the solicitation number in the subject line. Submitted questions shall reference the specific RFP section and page number.

Example Subject Line: “Wiley Coyote’s ACME Company // RFP# W58RGZ-20-R-0305

Questions received after the deadline may not be answered prior to proposal submission. Offerors shall not ask proprietary related questions. The Government will answer all questions through the issuance of a solicitation amendment prior to the deadline for final proposal submissions, provided it receives those questions no later than the date specified in the RFP. All questions and answers will be published on the Beta.SAM.gov website.

The Government does not anticipate extending the closing date for receipt of proposals.

Award Date: The anticipated award for this requirement is 2/26/2021.-

Offerors are cautioned that in order for their proposal to be eligible for award, the proposal shall be in compliance with all of the terms and conditions set forth in the RFP.

Proposals shall demonstrate that the offeror has an understanding of the requirements and associated risks, as well as possesses the resources and acumen to support the Soldier Unmanned Aircraft System efforts. The Government considers statements that the prospective offeror understands, or can or will comply with the specifications, and/or statements paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof to be inadequate and nonresponsive. The Government further considers mere reiteration of the requirement or standard reference material to also be inadequate and non-responsive. In addition, it is the offeror's responsibility to present sufficient information to be meaningfully evaluated without discussions. In presenting material in their proposals, offerors are also advised that quality of information is more important than quantity.

Any data previously submitted in response to another solicitation, should be assumed to be unavailable during this proposal evaluation and source selection process. Proposal data shall not be incorporated into the proposal by referring to another proposal or other source. Elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal, are neither necessary nor desired.

The Government reserves the right to request additional information after receipt of offeror’s response to the RFP. The proposal shall be valid for no less than 180 calendar days from the proposal due date. Offeror shall make a clear statement that the proposal is valid until such date in the Administrative Volume of the proposal. Files shall not contain classified information.

A company with multiple Divisions is permitted to submit a separate proposal for award consideration if each Division is separately registered in System for Award Management (SAM) (https://www.sam.gov). However, offerors are cautioned that if a company submits separate proposals from multiple Divisions, each Division’s proposal should address the full RFP requirements uniquely based on their particular Division’s capabilities. For example, management processes, small business participation plans, and/or past performance submissions of a different Division may not be used in support of another Division submitting a proposal. The proposal must be specific to the Division submitting the proposal.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION.

Offerors shall email proposals to POC(s) listed in the GENERAL section above.

LATE PROPOSALS

Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals, and any revisions, and modifications, so as to reach the Government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation. Any proposal, modification, or revision, that is received at the designated Government office after the exact time specified for receipt of proposals is “late” and will not be considered unless it is received before award is made, the contracting officer determines that accepting the late proposal would not unduly delay the acquisition; and, it was received at the initial point of entry to the Government infrastructure not later than 5:00 p.m. one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of proposals; or it was the only proposal received.

In the event of a late proposal, the KS or KO will notify the Offeror if they met the criteria to have their proposal accepted for evaluation.

PROPOSAL FILES

Offeror’s proposal submission shall be submitted via email or file transfer site.

Spreadsheet files included in the pricing volume shall be submitted in Microsoft (MS) Excel format. Price volume narratives and the remaining volumes shall be submitted in either MS Word or PDF formats. PDF formats must be searchable by Optical Character Recognition. All volumes shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Offers shall be provided to the Contract Specialist (KS) with the Contracting Officer (KO) on CC (see 1 above for POC information). Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of the page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. Proposals shall be written using Arial size 12 font, with one (1) inch margins. Proposals may include Arial size 9-12 font in headers, footers, and tables.

Each proposal file shall state the company name, followed by the proposal volume, for example "ABC - Technical". A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Contents feature in MS Word. Spreadsheet formulas shall remain intact and no pivot tables shall be included.

All pages shall contain the phrase: “SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION" in addition to referencing the FAR 3.104 proprietary data notice provided on the front/cover page.

PROPOSAL VOLUMES

The offeror’s proposal submission shall be in compliance with the table below: Information shall be confined to the appropriate volume to facilitate independent evaluation. The proposals shall be clear and concise, logically assembled (with all pages appropriately numbered), as well as indexed and cross-indexed to the RFP as appropriate. Pages over the maximum page limitation for any volume or evaluation factor will be excluded from evaluation. Offerors’ proposals shall be in four (4) volumes, Volumes I through IV, as listed below.

Volume I: Administrative

• Executive Summary (ES) shall include the following information

• Master Index

• Statement of Compliance

• Format and Content

• Security Clearance and Defense Security Service (DSS) office

• Offeror POCs, Cage Code, and DUNS

• Attachment 1 – Online Representations and Certifications and Provisions and

Clauses

• Attachment 2 – Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan

• Attachment 3 – Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense

Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) offices

• Attachment 4 – Complete, signed Teaming Agreements and Subcontracting Plan

(if applicable due to offeror size).

Page Limit (Volume I):

• Executive Summary: 10 Pages

• Attachments: None.

Volume II: Technical (Factor 1)

• Section 1: General Technical Capability

• Section 2: Subfactor 1 Technical Understanding

• Section 3: Subfactor 2 Organizational Structure and Management Approach

• Section 4: Subfactor 3 Key Personnel Qualifications

• Section 5: Subfactor 4 Management Resources

• Section 6: Subfactor 5 Initial Task Order Proposal

Page Limit (Volume II)

• Section 1: 2 pages for General Technical Capability

• Sections 2,3,5 and 6: 60 pages combined total

• Section 4: 15 pages total (5 resumes with 3-page limit each)

Volume III: Past Performance (Factor 2)

• Section 1: Contract Description

• Section 2: Contract Performance

• Attachment 1: Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire and list of referrals

(not included in proposal page count)

• Page Limit:

• Sections 1 and 2: 20 pages combined total

• Attachment 1: No Limit

Volume IV: Price (Factor 3)

• Section 1 - Price Workbook

• Section 2 - Other Than Certified Cost and Pricing Data

• No page limit

Table Notes:

Information shall be confined to the appropriate volume to facilitate independent evaluation. The proposals shall be clear and concise, logically assembled (with all pages appropriately numbered), as wells as indexed and cross-indexed to the applicable parts of the RFP as appropriate. Pages over the maximum page limitation for any volume or evaluation factor will be excluded from evaluation. Exceptions to the page limitations are, if required: cover pages, indices/tables of contents, cross-reference matrix, and acronym list.

The offeror shall write each volume on a stand-alone basis so the Government can evaluate its contents without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. The Government will consider information it requires for proposal evaluation not found in its designated volume as the offeror having omitted it from the proposal. A Cross- Reference Matrix correlates the evaluation criteria with the information the offeror submitted in the proposal. The offeror shall complete a Cross-Reference Matrix by indicating the proposal volume/paragraph corresponding to the Instructions to Offerors section and the Evaluation Factors for Award section, and include a copy in each Volume. The Cross-Reference Matrix is not included in the page count.

1.1 DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSAL

Information contained in the offeror’s Technical, Past Performance or Price proposal volumes must be released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) upon request from the public except to the extent it contains trade secrets and privileged or confidential commercial or financial information. Offerors who consider their information as proprietary may insert a statement similar to the following, “We consider the data in our submission proprietary to our firm, and object to its disclosure outside the U.S. Government, or its cognizant administrative or audit offices, whether pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act Section 821 Public Law 104-201, or any other law or regulation, including the transmittal of unencrypted proprietary data over the internet.” Unsuccessful offer proposals will not be released pursuant to a FOIA request. See FAR 52.215.1 regarding restriction on disclosure and use of the data.

1.2 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND TIMELINESS

Offerors are hereby on notice that a failure to submit all the required documentation in exactly the manner (timeliness and format) specified in the solicitation may constitute a basis for the Government to reject a proposal as non-compliant and therefore unacceptable, at the sole discretion of the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO).

Should an Offeror's proposal cause the Government to question the Offeror’s compliance with the requirements, the PCO, may determine at his/her discretion, that the Offeror’s proposal is deficient and/or non-compliant, and therefore, ineligible for award.

2. PROPOSAL CONTENT

2.1 VOLUME I - ADMINISTRATIVE

Executive Summary: A letter formally transmitting the proposal shall include:

a. Master Index. A master index that identifies the location of all major topics provided in each volume.

b. Statement of Compliance. Each offer shall include a signed letter or memorandum on company letterhead providing a statement indicating complete compliance with the solicitation in the Administrative volume, or detailed analysis of any objections, exceptions, contingencies, or additions. Any objection, exception, contingency, or addition shall be cross-referenced to the applicable solicitation paragraph(s).

c. Format and Content. Each offeror shall describe any deviations from the specified proposal format and content. If the offeror’s proposal differs from these guidelines, state the differences, and explain the reason.

d. Security Clearance. Each offeror shall provide, if applicable, disclosure of the level of their Facility Security Clearance (personnel and facility) and their cognizant DSS office with POC (address, name, phone, and email).

e. Offeror POCs. Offeror shall identify (primary and alternate) POCs authorized to respond to questions and/or negotiate on the offeror’s behalf. POC contact information shall include: physical address, primary email, work phone, cell phone.

Attachment 1 - Representations and Certifications: Offeror shall complete (fill-in with signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the solicitation. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 26 and all certifications requiring original signature. Using System for Award Management (SAM) the offeror shall enter the NAICS code for this effort (NAICS Code 541330 – Engineering Services), and complete the Representations and Certifications information appropriately. Offerors must register in SAM for NAICS 541330 to be determined responsive and responsible at time of proposal submission. Please refer to the website: SAM.gov.

Attachment 2 – Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan. Regardless of offerors’ size, they shall include an OCI mitigation plan in accordance with the clauses and provisions listed elsewhere in the RFP. In addition to the elements outlined in FAR Part 9.5, the Plan shall include an organizational chart and entry/exit employee NDA Template in offeror format. The Government’s request for a correction or revision of an OCI Plan shall not be considered as Discussions/Negotiations or the reopening of negotiations closed by a Final Proposal Revision.

Attachment 3 - Identification of the applicable Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) with POC name, address, phone, email and DODAAC. Offeror shall also provide its CAGE, DUNs, TIN or any Government issued DODAAC.

Attachment 4 –Signed Teaming Arrangements and Subcontracting Plan (if applicable).

All offerors (Large and Small Businesses) shall provide a summary describing the teaming or subcontracting arrangement established for this RFP, and a signed document (format as established by offeror) indicating a legally binding agreement (i.e., Teaming Agreements (TA)) among the parties. The TA should identify each proposed team member by company name and address, CAGE, description of the work to be performed and approximate amount of the subcontract. Also, Other Than Small Business (Large businesses) offerors ONLY shall submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9 and DFARS Clause 252.219-7003 (for reference see FAR 19.704 and DFARS 219-704). The Subcontracting Plan should be similar to the Small Business Participation Plan. This Plan shall be evaluated IAW AFARS Appendix DD. The Government’s request for a correction or revision of a Subcontracting Plan shall not be considered as Discussions/Negotiations or the reopening of negotiations closed by a Final Proposal Revision.

Failure to submit all of the documents required under paragraph L.2.1 of this RFP may result in a determination of non-compliance or non-responsiveness at the sole discretion of the PCO.

EVALUATION APPROACH

The Government intends to award without discussion. However, the Government reserves the right to enter into discussions if deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer. Therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial proposal submissions should contain their best terms. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to evaluation notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the award decision. The Army Contracting Command-Redstone Arsenal (ACC- RSA) will evaluate all proposals in accordance with FAR 15.305(a) and DFARS

215.305. If discussions are conducted, the Government will establish a Competitive Range, comprised of the most highly rated proposals, based upon the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors. The decision to establish a Competitive Range will be made at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The non-Price evaluation factors in descending order of importance are: Technical, then Past Performance. When combined, all non-Price factors are more important than the Price factor. Technical, and Past Performance will be rated using adjectival scales referenced in Section M. Subfactors of Factor 1 are of equal importance.

The Combined Technical/Risk rating below will be used and includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Offerors must receive a minimum of ACCEPTABLE in Factor 1 Technical in order to be eligible for award. An Unacceptable in any subfactor will result in an overall unacceptable proposal. Prices deemed not fair and reasonable will result in an overall unacceptable proposal.

No adjectival ratings shall be utilized for evaluating price. Adequate price competition is anticipated. The Government will use various techniques for price analysis available to determine the prices proposed are fair, reasonable and balanced. Normally adequate competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

• Subfactor 1 -Technical Understanding

• Subfactor 2 - Organizational Structure and Management Approach

• Subfactor 3 - Key Personnel Qualifications

• Subfactor 4 - Management of Resources

• Subfactor 5 - Initial Task Order

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: PRICE

2.2 VOLUME II - FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

FACTOR I - TECHNICAL.

The Offeror shall describe their technical approach in meeting the Program, Contract, and Management objectives as stated in the PWS cited in this solicitation. The Offeror shall describe their approach and processes as outlined in the following five subfactors, Technical Understanding, Organizational Structure and Management Approach, Key Personnel Qualifications, Management of Resources and Initial Task Order and the Offeror submits a proposal that clearly outlines their approach to meeting Performance Requirements as outlined in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).

• Subfactor 1 – TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING The Offeror shall describe their approach to perform all aspects of the scope of the Soldier Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS) technical support services contract IAW the Performance Work State including but not limited to, Program Management, Logistics, Engineering, Test, Validation, Verification, and Maintenance Sustainment related requirements for the Rucksack Portable Unmanned Aircraft System (RPUAS) Program. The RPUAS Program includes the U.S. Army Group I Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) inventory comprised of Short-Range Reconnaissance (SRR), Medium Range Reconnaissance (MRR), and Long-Range Reconnaissance (LRR) aircraft as well as the Handheld Ground Control Station (H-GCS) utilizing Tactical Open Government-owned Architecture (TOGA). The Offeror shall describe their approach to meeting Performance Requirements as outlined in the QASP.

• Subfactor 2 – ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT

APPROACH

The Offeror shall describe their organizational structure including all subcontractors that will comprise the entire contractor team. The Offeror shall describe their performance - based approach to managing the contractor team, in coordinating day-to day operations, in coordinating and collaborating with Government personnel in both management and service delivery functions, and effectively and efficiently meeting all contract requirements found in the PWS.

• Subfactor 3 - KEY PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

The Offeror shall provide resumes of proposed Key Personnel (as indicated by the Government) who will perform work under this contract as identified by the Government. The Offeror shall indicate current employees, contingent employees and subcontractors (current and contingent). Each resume will be mapped to one labor category.

• Subfactor 4 - MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES The Offeror shall describe their proposed approach for this contract to recruiting/obtaining, training, retaining and replacing personnel of appropriate qualifications, experience, education, and skill levels to satisfy the requirements and objectives set forth in the PWS. The Offeror shall describe their approach to managing workload fluctuations, ensuring the ability to maintain the required personnel, and their approach to ensure timely availability and cost effectiveness of contractor resources.

• Subfactor 5 – INITIAL TASK ORDER The Offeror shall propose to the task order that will be evaluated and issued in conjunction with the IDIQ award to establish a minimum guarantee using the criteria established in the Government-provided PWS and the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). The Offeror shall describe their technical approach in meeting the Program, Contract, and Management objectives as stated in the Task Order.

The Government will evaluate the offerors use of proposed labor hours and labor mix in regards to realism and efficiency.

2.3 Volume III Past Performance

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The offeror shall describe the offeror’s Past Performance against a probability of success in performing work specific to the PWS requirements, and describes offeror’s execution of cost, schedule and performance relative to the areas as described in Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors Section, as well as information that addresses demonstrated use of business processes relevant to the PWS.

Based on the offeror’s input and other Government Past Performance research, the Government will make a Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will also evaluate the recent and relevant Performance Citations provided by the offeror.

The performance Confidence Assessment includes assessing the risk associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation requirements as indicated by the offeror's record of Past Performance.

The Government’s intent in this assessment is to identify those offerors whose Past Performance is recent and relevant. Recent is defined as the past four (4) years from the date of the release of the RFP. Relevancy is described as contracts for engineering services provided to the Government of $500,000.00 or more being similar in service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance represents the highest confidence in providing beneficial solutions to the PWS requirements in the execution of TOs.

Sources of Past Performance Information may include (not a complete list):

• Past Performance Information provided by the offeror, as solicited

• Contractor Performance Assessments Reporting System (CPARS)

• Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

• Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)

• Other Government databases

• Interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers (KO)s and Fee

Determining Officials

• Defense Contract Management Agency

The offeror shall prepare and submit a Past Performance Volume. The offeror shall provide performance information using the Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors Section. Offerors shall provide up to ten submissions reflecting their recent and relevant Past Performance. By submission of Past Performance data, the offeror: 1) authorizes the Government to seek and use information from commercial sources to verify performance of past commercial contracts, if applicable and 2) constitutes consent from subcontractors, teaming partners and joint venture partners to release Past Performance information to the offeror in order for the offeror to respond to such information, if required by the Government.

Past Performance Information

The offeror shall submit Past Performance information on contracts (as a prime or subcontractor) relevant to the efforts required. The Government may choose to investigate contracts prior to the past four years for the purpose of the evaluation.

Contracts terminated for any reason in whole or in part, to include those currently in process of such termination are considered relevant. The offeror shall provide Past Performance Information for those contracts, (not included in Volume page limit).

Data concerning the Prime offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major Subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The major Subcontractors listed in this volume should match the Teaming Arrangements and Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) provided in the Administrative Volume, and the Small Business Participation Plan listed in the Technical Volume. The Past Performance volume shall be organized into the following sections:

Section 1 - Contract Descriptions: This section shall include the following information for up to five (5) contracts:

a. Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number.

If the work was performed as a Subcontractor, also provide the name of the Prime contractor and POC within the Prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone.

b. Government contracting activity, current address, Procuring Contracting officer's name, e-mail address, telephone.

c. Government’s Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and/or the

Government’s Program Manager’s, current e-mail address, telephone.

d. Government contract administration activity, the Administrative Contracting officer's name, current e-mail address, and telephone.

e. Government contract administration activity's Pre-Award Monitor's name, current e-mail address, telephone.

f. Contract Number (in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include delivery/task order numbers).

g. Contract Type (specified type, such as Fixed Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement

(CR), Time & Materials (T&M), etc.) In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, or Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.)).

h. Award amount or projected final price.

i. Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

j. Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

Section 2 - Contract Performance. For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, or small business participation/subcontracting requirements offerors shall provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. The offerors shall also provide a copy of any Cure Notices, Show Cause Letters, or Letters of Concern received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

(i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which will include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

(ii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts presented for review.

The offeror’s recent and relevant past performance as defined in this RFP shall provide the Government with an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The Offeror provided recent and relevant Past Performance examples that validated its ability to deliver engineering services that provide the capabilities defined in the SOW and demonstrated Past Performance that met cost, schedule and performance requirements on recent and relevant programs.

To be considered for award, a rating of no less than “RELEVANT” with “SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE” must be achieved for the Past Performance factor. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful Past Performance rating can be assigned, the offeror will be rated as “NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE.” An offeror with a rating of “NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE” is eligible for an award.

2.4 VOLUME IV PRICE

FACTOR 3 PRICE

The contract price proposal and task order price proposal will be evaluated for completeness, fairness and reasonableness and balance. The Price Factor will not be given an adjectival rating. Price Reasonableness is a matter of the competitiveness of the offeror's proposal.

Section 1 - Price Workbook: Offeror shall provide a completed Price Workbook and Supplies and Services Schedule in contractor format.

Section 2– Other Than Certified Cost and Pricing Data. Given that competition is anticipated, Certified Cost and Pricing Data are not required at this time. The offerors shall provide rationale in support of their proposed rates and costs which would allow for price analysis to be performed IAW FAR 15.404-1(b). Examples include, current or former contracts, GSA schedules, catalog prices, etc.

Section 3 – Initial Task Order 0001: A Task Order is provided to issue the first task order of the ID/IO contracts and to establish the minimum guarantee. Using the labor pricing proposed for the IDIQ contract offeror shall submit pricing for the attached task order.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced among the CLINs.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price or price analysis techniques.

Proposed contract prices will be considered in the overall price evaluation. The Government will conduct a price and technical analyses to evaluate each offeror’s pricing information in terms of completeness and reasonableness.

Significant inconsistencies between the Technical Proposal and Price Proposal, if unexplained, may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. The Government will evaluate each proposal IAW its content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the offeror's proposal.

Price evaluations will be performed in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.404-1, and one or more of the price analysis techniques contained therein.

The factor will be evaluated, but not adjectivally rated, and will be used in the Government’s Cost-Technical tradeoff to select the awardee for this contract.

The offeror shall propose prices which are complete, balanced, fair and reasonable. Little to no additional risk is incurred by the Government in accepting the proposed prices. The factor will be evaluated, but not given an adjectival rating.