B08 Amended Solicitation W81XWH-21-R-0020-01.pdf

0011553976

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Subject solicitation is modif ied to provide answ ers to questons received from industry

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 11

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 05-Mar-2021

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W81XWH21R0020

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

25-Feb-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer 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 amendment; (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 APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) 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 date, 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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

05-Mar-2021

CODE

USA MED RESEARCH ACQ ACTIVITY

820 CHANDLER ST

FORT DETRICK MD 21702-5014

W81XWH 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W81XWH21R0020

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question # 1

We would like to confirm that the submission is via e-mail of Volume I and Volume II directly to your e-mail by March 11th as outlined below?

Proposal is due electronically No Later Than: 11 March 2021 at 2:00 p.m. EST and shall be submitted to Mr.

Nathaniel Reus at nathaniel.a.reus.civ@mail.mil

ANSWER: Yes, proposal is due electronically No Later Than: 11 March 2021 at 2:00 p.m. EST and shall be submitted to Mr. Nathaniel Reus at nathaniel.a.reus.civ@mail.mil

Question # 2 We would like to check for the definition of "Cost Voucher" and whether it is a requirement for the items described in our budget? Is it a quote for the service or item?

ANSWER: Cost Voucher – is the format for invoice submission in Wide Area Work Flow for payment as cost is incurred.

Question # 3 On the instructions it is written:

The offeror's proposal shall consist of three volumes:

Volume I – Business/Cost Price Proposal Volume II – Technical Proposal (Technical, Experience & Past Performance) What would be volume III?

ANSWER: There is no Volume III included in the solicitation, see revisions to instructions.

Question # 4 The contract start date is listed on April 1st and the work is to be completed in 12 months. We would like to confirm that the12 months will be counted from the month the contract is actually paid or whether it is to count from April 1st regardless of when the contract is actually in place?

Answer: 1 April 2021 is the estimated start date and is subject to change. The start date will be finalized when the award is submitted to the Contracting Officer for signature, the start date will be in April.

Question # 5 A few questions regarding the references: a) Do I have to provide reference letters of support or only the information of the references? I understood it is only the information of the reference, but felt that I should double check. b) I have scientific collaborations with scientists from USARIEM - can I include a USARIEM scientist as a reference given that they are the ones advertising the opportunity?

Answer: Past Performance references are to be provided for similar or like work required in this effort. The similar or like effort references can be for other Government Agencies, Private or Public work.

Question # 6

Do we have to complete all the checklist in the “Proposal Adequacy Checklist”? See page 27/43 Answer: Yes, this RFP will require submission of certified cost or pricing data and therefore this must be completed.

It is required to ensure the submission is thorough, accurate and complete proposal.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS:

This section provides general guidance for preparation of proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The Offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The proposal shall also be compliant with all requirements as stated in the Statement of Work (SOW).

The Offeror shall submit documentation illustrating its approach for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation.

Proposals must be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria. This documentation shall cover all aspects of this solicitation and include the Offeror’s approach for integration and program management activities. Proposals must clearly demonstrate how the Offeror intends to accomplish the project and must include convincing rationale and substantiation of all claims.

Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete effective response to the solicitation are not desired.

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and small business size standard. The NAICS code and small business size standard for this acquisition appears in Section K 52.204-8. However, the small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, but which proposes to furnish an item which it did not itself manufacture, is 1000 employees.

The Government will evaluate only one proposal from the prime Offeror. The Government will not accept alternate proposals. Offerors’ proposals must include a statement that the proposal shall remain valid for a minimum of 90 days from the date of submission.

All proposal information is subject to verification by the Government. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Any data previously submitted in response to another solicitation to USAMRAA or another agency shall be assumed to be unavailable during this proposal evaluation and source selection process. Proposal data shall not be incorporated into this proposal by referring to another proposal or other source.

The Government will not reimburse any Offerors for costs incurred as a result of preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation.

Offers submitted in response to this solicitation shall be in the English language. Offers received in other than English shall be determined non-responsive.

2. Point of Contact and Questions: The Contract Specialist (CS) is the point of contact for this acquisition. Any questions or concerns regarding this acquisition shall be submitted electronically via e-mail to nathaniel.a.reus.civ@mail.mil mailto:nathaniel.a.reus.civ@mail.mil

3. Questions Submission: Questions pertaining to the solicitation requirements shall submit questions no later than Thursday, 4 March 2021 at 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time to nathaniel.a.reus.civ@mail.mil. Offeror shall submit one set of questions only; multiple emails will not be accepted. Questions not submitted electronically will not be answered. Answers to all relevant and appropriate questions will be issued via amendment to the solicitation.

4. Proposal Due Date:

Proposal is due electronically No Later Than: 11 March 2021 at 2:00 p.m. EST and shall be submitted to Mr.

Nathaniel Reus at nathaniel.a.reus.civ@mail.mil

5. Submission of offers.

The Offeror shall submit their proposal electronically to nathaniel.a.reus.civ@mail.mil in accordance with the instructions outlined below:

Content Requirement: All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume. The Offeror shall insure that submissions are clear, specific, complete and limited to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Failure to submit all documents concurrently and in accordance with these instructions may render a proposal UNACCEPTABLE.

Document Format Submission:

The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the

Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins - Top, Bottom Left, Right - 1" Gutter - 0" From Edge - Header, footer - 0.5" Page Size, Width - 8.5" Page Size, Height - 11"

Printing should be single spaced. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial font is required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 10-point and may be landscape.

Proposal must be submitted in a Microsoft 2000 (or newer) program on Microsoft Word. PDF Format is also an acceptable format for electronic submissions.

Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in quotes is prohibited. Offerors are cautioned that “regurgitation” of the Technical requirements or the SOW with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each quote. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

Content Requirement: All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The Offeror shall insure that submissions are clear, specific, complete and limited to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Content shall be indexed (cross-indexed, as appropriate) and logically assembled. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file.

The offeror's proposal shall consist of two volumes:

Volume I – Business/Cost Price Proposal Volume II – Technical Proposal (Technical, Experience & Past Performance) mailto:nathaniel.a.reus.civ@mail.mil

5.1.Volume I - Business Proposal: The volume shall contain the following documentation:

5.1.1. Institute Cover Letter

5.1.2. SF 33 - Solicitation, Offer and Award with Blocks 12 - 18 completed by the Offeror.

5.1.3. Acknowledgment of Solicitation Amendments (if applicable)

5.1.4. Contract Administration Data (Section G - this identifies the Prime Offeror's employee(s) responsible for contract administration.)

5.1.5. Representations and Certifications (Section K), 52.208-8 52.204-24, 52.204-26 and 52.209-11.

5.1.6. Dun & Bradstreet Number (DUNS), CAGE Code, and Tax Identification Number (TIN)

5.1.7. Cost Content:The Offeror shall provide a statement of the methodology and assumptions utilized as the basis for costs proposed for the requirement. Certified Cost or Pricing data is required. The proposed costs must be sufficiently detailed to evaluate the fairness, reasonableness and realism for the proposed level of effort. Offeror's shall address, at a minimum, all escalation factors applied and calculations of all Direct, Indirect, Overhead, G&A and Profit/Fee (if proposed) cost factors. Contractor shall provide pricing for the base period and the option periods.

5.1.8. Offerors Accounting System - All Offerors are required to have an adequate accounting system as defined in DFARS Clause 252.242-7004, 252.242-7005, 252.242-7006 (Accounting System Administration) to be eligible for an award. Evidence in the form of (a) Third party audited financial statements to include audit of accounting system and methods, (b) Current Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) cost accounting system audit report, or (c) Current certified DCAA Standard Form 1408 shall be accepted. Self certification or unsubstantiated statements of possessing an adequate accounting system or acceptable purchasing system is insufficient and may render the Offeror’s proposal non-responsive.

5.1.9. SF33, Cost submission, and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in Volume I - Business Proposal. Cost information shall be included in Volume I only and shall not be discussed or exhibited in any other part of the Offeror's proposal.

5.1.10. Offeror's proposal must stipulate that it is predicated upon all the terms and conditions of this RFP.

5.2. Volume II Technical Proposal: The volume shall include five (5) sections, as follows:

Section Page Limitation Executive Summary/Abstract 1 Technical (Technical Approach, Experience and Past Performance)

30 Pages

Pages should be numbered consecutively throughout the document and not by sections. For any sections of a proposal with a defined page limit, pages exceeding the specified limit will be removed and not forwarded for evaluation. The following sections are not subject to page limits:

(1) Table of Contents

(2) Title page

(3) Contractor POC Cover Page

Factor 1. Technical Approach: The Offeror shall submit a written technical approach which effectively demonstrates the following:

• Offeror’s clear understanding of all the tasks outlined in the PWS and how the approach is likely to yield the required results within the required time frame.

• The Offeror shall specifically demonstrate how the offeror plans to conduct:

o Survival surgeries (telemeter implantation and ovariectomy/sham) o Acclimation studies in all animals o Exertional Heat Stroke (EHS) experiments in mice using the EHS model currently used at

USARIEM where forced wheel running is combined with heat stress.

o How the offeror plans to perform the measurement of cytokine and heat shock protein levels in plasma and/or tissues and the extent of histological injury in EHS mice. How the offeror plans to analyze the thermoregulatory profiles during EHS recovery and incorporate the molecular, histological data to understand the role of estrogen on acclimation and organ damage in EHS in female mice.

• Offeror’s methodology and flexibility that will be used in accomplishing the tasks set forth in the SOW.

Factor 2. Experience: The Offeror shall submit written information which effectively demonstrates:

• The Offeror’s relevant experience (for this purpose, experience refers to what an Offeror has done, not how well it was accomplished) identical to, similar to or related to performing services contained within the SOW. The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the amount of relevant corporate experience the Offeror possesses.

Offeror’s relevant experience shall support and substantiate that the organization (to include support contractors, consultants, key personnel, and business partners) has current capabilities for assuring performance of this requirement. Experience shall show: (a) Appropriate mix and balance of education and training of team members; and, (b) Quality and effectiveness insofar as the allocation of personnel and resources.

• The Offerors shall demonstrate research to explore the role of estrogen deficiency and Good Clinical Practices guidelines.

Factor 3. Past Performance:

The Offeror shall submit no more than three (3) references of relevant contracts within the past three (3) years for its own performance. The contracts may be past or current as long as the performance did not end more than three years ago and the contracts may have been with Federal, State and/or City agencies and commercial customers.

• Past Performance Reference Content: It is the Offeror's responsibility to provide valid, current and verifiable references. References must include:

Name of the Organization that will be providing the reference, Name of the POC, POC Telephone Number, POC Email address, Contract Number, NAICS Code of Same or Similar Relevant to this Requirement (NAICS for this requirement is 541715) Period of Performance, and Scope of Work

• Information From Other Sources: The Government may consider information obtained through other sources. The Government reserves the right to consider other past performance information at its disposal (i.e., information provided in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), in addition to any information obtained from the references provided.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Evaluation Criteria

(a) The Government intends to award a single award. Offerors shall provide their best, complete proposal upon initial submission. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions if deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer. A Technical Evaluation Panel will evaluate all proposals based on the proposals/documentation provided. The evaluations will be based on the evaluation criteria set forth below.

a. Basis for Award: The award of this requirement will be made on a competitive best value basis, using "best value tradeoff" among cost/price and non‐cost/price factors. A best value tradeoff process will be used, thus, the Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced offeror, or other than the offeror with the highest rated non‐cost/price proposal. Past Performance will be evaluated independently from the other non‐cost/price evaluation factors using different standards. The non‐cost/price evaluation factors (numbered in descending order of importance) are as follows:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Experience Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Cost/ Price

Government evaluators will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal. After each of the non-cost/price factors is rated individually, an overall rating will be assigned collectively to these factors. If any of the above non-cost/price evaluation factors receives an individual rating of “Unacceptable,” the collective overall rating will also be “Unacceptable.” Only proposals receiving an overall rating of “Acceptable” or higher will be considered for award.

The non-cost/price factors are more important than cost/price. However, as Offeror’s non-cost/price factors are rated similar or equal, cost/price becomes more important.

Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Criteria:

The following criteria will be used to evaluate the non-cost/price aspects of the proposal.

Factor 1. Technical Approach: The Offeror shall submit a written technical approach which effectively demonstrates the following:

Offeror’s clear understanding of all the tasks outlined in the PWS and how the approach is likely to yield the required results within the required time frame.

The Offeror shall specifically demonstrate how the offeror plans to conduct:

Survival surgeries (telemeter implantation and ovariectomy/sham) Acclimation studies in all animals Exertional Heat Stroke (EHS) experiments in mice using the EHS model currently used at USARIEM where forced wheel running is combined with heat stress.

How the offeror plans to perform the measurement of cytokine and heat shock protein levels in plasma and/or tissues and the extent of histological injury in EHS mice. How the offeror plans to analyze the thermoregulatory profiles during EHS recovery and incorporate the molecular, histological data to understand the role of estrogen on acclimation and organ damage in EHS in female mice.

Offeror’s methodology and flexibility that will be used in accomplishing the tasks set forth in the SOW.

Factor 2. Experience: The Offeror shall submit written information which effectively demonstrates:

The Offeror’s relevant experience (for this purpose, experience refers to what an Offeror has done, not how well it was accomplished) identical to, similar to or related to performing services contained within the SOW. The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the amount of relevant corporate experience the Offeror possesses. Offeror’s relevant experience shall support and substantiate that the organization (to include support contractors, consultants, key personnel, and business partners) has current capabilities for assuring performance of this requirement.

Experience shall show: (a) Appropriate mix and balance of education and training of team members; and, (b) Quality and effectiveness insofar as the allocation of personnel and resources.

The Offerors shall demonstrate research to explore the role of estrogen deficiency and Good Clinical Practices guidelines.

Rating Standards for the Non Cost/Price Proposal (Excluding Past Performance)

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Best Value Tradeoff Evaluation Standard Definitions

Rating Definition Clarifications Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

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

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weakness in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001

Discussions Negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

Performance Confidence Assessment

An evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Recency

As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy

As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Risk

The potential for unsuccessful contractor performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost (not applicable to firm-fixed price contracts) for degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Strength

A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Strength

An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contractperformance. See FAR 15.001.

Factor 3. Past Performance:

Past Performance: The Government will conduct an evaluation of the Offerors Past Performance as well as that of its subcontractors. Past Performance consists of two aspects for evaluation, past performance relevancy and performance confidence; thus, the Offeror will be assigned two ratings for past performance. First, the Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance references to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the requirement to be acquired through this source selection. Common aspects of relevance include similarity of service/support, complexity, magnitude of effort, dollar value, and contract type. Second, the Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance references to determine the quality of work performed and assess the level of expectation that the Offeror can successfully perform the required effort. This second portion of the Past Performance evaluation is the confidence assessment. This assessment will included information from, but not be limited to, Government resources at its disposal (i.e., information provided in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System), in addition to any information obtained from the references provided based on the NAICS code of 541714 identified for this requirement. An overall Relevancy and Confidence rating will be assigned collectively on the references provided.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Standards

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance Confidence Assessments Standards for the Non Cost/Price Proposal

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror shall successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror shall successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence the Government has a low expectation that the Offer shall

No Confidence the Government has no expectation that the Offeror shall

Factor 4. Price: Cost and cost analsysis will be evaluated separately from non-price and past performance factors. A price analysis will be performed in order to evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed price. The proposed price will be evaluated to ascertain consistency with the level of effort described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

A Cost Analysis shall be utilized to determine fair and reasonableness.

The objective of a cost analysis is to ensure that the final agreed-to cost is fair and reasonable and consistent with the effort proposed. The cost analysis will not only consider the total cost, but also the cost for the individual tasks to ensure that they are not unbalanced. All Offeror's separately priced line items will be analyzed to determine if the costs are unbalanced. Offerors must follow instructions outlined under "Cost Proposal" in section L of this document. The cost analysis will review and evaluate any separate cost elements (to include indirect rates) in an Offeror's proposal to determine a fair and reasonable price or to determine cost realism.

The total evaluated cost will be evaluated for reasonableness in terms of:

(1) The methodology and assumptions utilized as the basis for pricing the service. The cost must be sufficiently detailed to evaluate the reasonableness, proposed level of effort and price

(2) Offerors will be placed on notice that any proposals that are unrealistic in terms of Non-cost factors commitment or unrealistically low in price(s) will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of contract requirements, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

(3) Cost will not receive an adjectival rating.

(4) For cost reimbursement contracts, the Government will conduct a cost analysis to determine whether the proposed cost are reasonable for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of contract requirements, and is consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror's technical proposal.

(5) A written notice of award or acceptance of an Offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(6) Acceptable accounting practices shall be evaluated through the use of the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist and the Standard Form 1408 (Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System).

(7) Options: 52.217-8.

The subject clause allows for up to an additional 6 months of continued contract performance at the rates specified in the contract. The Government separately evaluated the additional 6 months of potential performance. It is unknown at this time if additional performance will be required. However this evaluation constitutes a mathematical assessment of up to 6 months of additional cost and satisfies the requirement to evaluate the options at time of award and meet the requirements of FAR Part 6 by evaluating the FAR clause 52.217-8 extension at time of award. As

(End of Summary of Changes)