EVALUATION_APPROACH.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Approach

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. This is a competitive, 100% 8(a) small business set-aside acquisition for multiple award (MA) indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract(s) type and Task Order (TO) 0001 that is anticipated to be issued soon after the base award(s). This is a best value trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFARS). Award(s) will be made based on the best overall proposal(s) that is/are determined to provide the best value trade-off to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the following three (3) evaluation factors:

(I) Technical; (II) Past Performance; and (III) Cost. The Technical Factor is slightly more important than the Past

Performance Factor. The Past Performance Factor is slightly more important than the Cost factor. However, the factors are sufficiently close that as the cost increases, it diminishes the relative benefit of higher ratings in technical and/or past performance. Offerors are thus cautioned that award(s) may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

2. It is the intention of the Government to award at least two (2), but no more than four (4), MA IDIQ CPFF contract(s) with a shared ceiling up to $45,960,411.42. In addition, the Government anticipates TO 0001 will be issued to one (1) of the MA CPFF IDIQ contract awardees, soon after the base award. In accordance with FAR

16.505(b)(2)(i)(D), the guaranteed minimum award for the basic IDIQ contracts is $3,500.

3. In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(E), the Contracting Officer may issue sole source TOs over the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), if the order is equal to or less than the thresholds identified at FAR 19.805-

1(a)(2).

4. The ordering period for each IDIQ CPFF contract will be five (5) years from the date of award. The anticipated period of performance for Task Order 0001, if awarded, will not exceed one (1) year.

5. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award(s) without discussions. If discussions are to be conducted, a competitive range will be established and comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals (unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2)) based on the evaluation criteria identified within Section M of this Request for Proposal (RFP). After completion of discussions with each offeror in the competitive range (if conducted) and in accordance with FAR 15.307(b), all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a specified period to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

6. The RFP includes a Basic PWS, to include Appendix A – Labor Categories, as well as a Sample Task PWS.

Offerors must be able to perform all areas of the Basic PWS to be eligible for a MA IDIQ CPFF contract award. It is imperative that offerors expressly provide that their proposal(s) is valid for a 90 day period after the date of the

RFP response date.

7. 8(a) small businesses must be eligible pursuant to FAR Part 19. Proposals received from offerors that do not qualify as small business concerns under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541611 (size standard $15.0M) shall not be considered for the RFP. All small businesses will be evaluated using the same evaluation criteria identified in Section M of the RFP.

8. The Solicitation will close at 10:00AM ET on 07 February 2017. No proposals will be accepted after that time. If the Offeror experiences technical difficulties when submitting their proposal, the Contracting Office should be notified in writing prior to the Solicitation closing for assistance.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award(s) will be made to the offerors whose proposals are determined to provide the greatest assessed value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Management and Personnel

b. Recruitment and Retention

c. Understanding of Work to be accomplished

Technical Evaluation Subfactor (a) (Management and Personnel) slightly outweighs Subfactor (b) (Recruitment and

Retention). Subfactor (b) (Recruitment and Retention) outweighs Subfactor (c) (Understanding of Work to be

Accomplished). Technical Evaluation Subfactors (b) and (c), when combined, outweigh Subfactor (a).

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal will address each subfactor as it applies to the PWS. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Past Performance

The offeror will be required to submit complete and accurate information as requested within Section L – Instruction to Offerors - Proposal Submission, section (ii) Volume II – Past Performance. Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment. Relevancy of Past Performance is further divided into the following Subfactors:

a. Relevancy to a Government Laboratory;

b. Relevancy to the Army;

c. Relevant;

Past Performance Subfactor (a) (Relevancy to a Government Laboratory) outweighs Subfactor (b) (Relevancy to the

Army) and Subfactor (c) (Relevant). Past Performance Subfactor (b) outweighs Subfactor (c).

Factor 3: Cost

The resulting award(s) will be an IDIQ contract using CPFF contract type. A cost reasonableness and cost realism analysis will be utilized in the evaluation of these efforts. The offeror will be required to submit complete and accurate information as requested within Section L – Instruction to Offerors - Proposal Submission, section (iii)

Volume III – Cost.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The SSEB will conduct a structured evaluation that examines an offeror’s ability to understand and perform the Government’s requirement; there are three (3) Evaluation factors: (I) Technical; (II) Past Performance; and (III) Cost. Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Subfactor as it applies to the Basic PWS and Sample TO PWS. Technical

Evaluation Subfactor (a) (Management and Personnel) slightly outweighs Subfactor (b) (Recruitment and Retention) and Subfactor (c) (Understanding of Work to be Accomplished). Technical Evaluation Subfactor (b) outweighs

Subfactor (c). Technical Evaluation Subfactors (b) and (c), when combined, outweigh Subfactor (a). Past

Performance Subfactor (a) (Relevancy to a Government Laboratory) outweighs Subfactor (b) (Relevancy to the

Army) and Subfactor (c) (Relevant). Past Performance Subfactor (b) outweighs Subfactor (c). All Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not be made to the lowest cost offered or the highest technically rated proposal due to the tradeoff determination. At the Source Selection Authority’s discretion, award may be made based on a proposal that exceeds acceptable ratings in Technical and/or Past Performance and is + 5% higher in price. The Technical

Factor is of paramount importance and is slightly more important than the Past Performance Factor. The Past

Performance Factor is slightly more important than the Cost factor. However, as the difference between ratings diminish the relative importance of the cost increases. At the Source Selection Authority’s discretion, a competitive range may be established comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals based on the evaluation criteria, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). The final award determination will be based on the greatest assessed value to the Government. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

OVERARCHING EVALUATION APPROACH –ALL FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

1. TECHNICAL EVALUATION APPROACH

FACTOR I & SUBFACTORS –

Subfactor (a): Management & Personnel. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed management and personnel structure. The Management Plan shall address management, supervision and administration plans and processes to effectively manage performance and personnel at all task locations and across all Task Orders. The management plan should describe how the offeror will provide direct supervision of all contracting employees (to include Major Subcontractors, Joint Venture agreements, and DoD/Army Mentor Protégé agreements), avoid the appearance of inherently governmental functions and personal services, and successfully accomplish of all tasks assigned to contractor employees. A Management Plan that provides a unique, balanced approach to providing supervision and employees capable of performing independently while also providing on-site and reach back support that results in 100% accomplishment of assigned tasks, meeting all deadlines routinely and effectively, providing status of progress, and two-way communication between government POCs and contractors; thereby, improving the level of service throughout contract performance and avoiding inherently governmental and personal services will be assessed as exceeding acceptable performance requirements.

This subfactor will be evaluated using the five (5) following elements, which are of equal importance:

I. Contract/Program Management Structure and Approach – The offeror clearly describes a contract and management structure that provides the necessary control, management and supervision over personnel at each place of performance. Sufficient details are provided to explain the roles and responsibilities of the necessary proposed key personnel, which may include an appropriate mix of program managers (PMs), Assistant PMs, Site Leads, Team Leads, etc. The approach should describe how the management structure and processes will result in improved efficiency and quality of service.

II. Communications – The offeror clearly describes channels of communication between the Government and offeror to provide for efficient and timely resolution of contract performance issues.

III. Internal Controls – The offeror clearly describes internal management control mechanisms to avoid the appearance of inherently governmental functions and personal services. The offeror demonstrates their ability to manage the day-to-day operations of the work and services as set forth in the Basic PWS and

Future Task Orders and includes examples from most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three (3) years). The description should include details on data systems, procedures, techniques, and task order tracking systems that will support management of the contract to include financial reporting.

IV. Adequacy of Work Force - The offeror clearly describes the capability to respond to fluctuating workloads

(e.g. ramping up/ramping down, turnover, surges and decreases) in requirements. The proposed personnel, to include Key Personnel, have the current knowledge, skills, and educational requirement in the disciplines required by the Basic PWS and Sample TO PWS with sufficient business acumen to work with world class scientists and engineers. The proposed personnel have performed similar types of work to that described in the Basic PWS and Sample TO PWS. The Government will review the resumes and professional reference for all Key Personnel and Sample TO proposed personnel to include education, skills, certification, and experience in the technical disciplines required by the Basic PWS and Sample TO PWS.

V. Availability - The proposed personnel that meet the requirements set forth in the Basic PWS and Sample

TO PWS, are available to support the contract effort. Letters of commitment shall be attached to resumes for all proposed personnel that are not currently direct employees of the prime contractor. The offeror shall ensure each letter, at a minimum, includes a statement of agreement to work for the company in the event the contract is awarded, RFP number, availability, length of commitment, associated direct labor category, description of services to be provided, ability to obtain a clearance and signature of offeror and offeree.

Subfactor (b): Recruitment and Retention. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Recruitment and

Retention Plan. The Army Research Laboratory faces unique challenges with administrative support of routine laboratory functions. Government Personnel are focused on accomplishment of the various technical missions and rely on the professionalism and expertise of administrative support personnel. A stable, well-trained, proficient, experienced administrative support staff provides the necessary continuity and support required to allow

Government personnel to focus on inherently governmental tasks. The Contractor shall provide a recruitment and retention plan sufficient for recruiting, attracting, hiring and retaining high caliber employees with the necessary experience, subject matter experts necessary to meet the personnel qualification requirements of the basic PWS and individual TO requests. The plan shall adequately describe how program and performance risk will be avoided to allow Government employees to focus on the mission without worry of how and if all administrative support tasks will be accomplished. Proposals that describe in a detailed, logical and concise manner how the Recruitment and

Retention Plan support the Management & Personnel Plan effectively resulting in an approach that provides quality administrative support to the government free of the need for government intervention will be rated higher than acceptable. This subfactor will be evaluated using the two (2) following elements which are of equal importance:

I. Recruitment Plan – The offeror clearly describes the offeror’s recruitment strategies and experience for identifying, recruiting, vetting, preparing, hiring, and onboarding highly trained Administrative and

Technical staff with the appropriate background, knowledge, skills/expertise necessary to meet the requirements established in the Basic PWS, Sample TO PWS, and future TOs. The plan should describe local area employment markets, identify any challenges/ constraints for each area and how their plan proposes to overcome them, assuring highly qualified, highly trained, and specialized subject matter expert personnel are made available at contract commencement, task order issuance, and/ or as a backfill to vacant positions, to support the contract effort. The offeror demonstrates effective use of their recruitment plan and clearly details each stage of their recruitment and selection process when recruiting Key Personnel and

Sample TO PWS proposed personnel that meet the requirements detailed in the Basic PWS and Sample TO

PWS. The proposed plan includes additional specific measures used to incentivize and capture candidates who might not otherwise accept a position in its standard offer (etc. financial and nonfinancial incentives such as pay raises, awards, and recognition). The plan should also include the procedures that will be used to verify the qualifications of candidates prior to placement.

II. Retention Plan- The offeror’s proposed retention plan clearly describes how to retain, support, and replace

(when necessary) Contractor personnel. This plan should describe local area labor markets and how the proposed plan supports the recruitment and retention goals. The proposed retention plan is effective in assuring the offeror’s retention program fosters a stable workforce, maintains low employee turnover rates, and ensures no position is vacant for greater than 30 days. The plan should also clearly describe procedures to ensure Contractor personnel meet and maintain the skills/expertise necessary to fulfill the requirements established in each TOR and this PWS on day one (1) of placement at the job site; describe a Quality

Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) that ensures proper oversight of personnel, training, certifications, subcontractors, and compliance with Operational Security requirements (reference C.13); procedures for addressing Contractor staff performance issues in terms of not meeting quality, timeliness, professionalism and other related performance requirements associated with the performance of duties; procedures for identifying and removing any personnel not adequately performing required activities; procedures to minimize disruption to Government requirements caused by employee turnover or employee vacation or sick leave.

Subfactor (c): Understanding of Work to be Accomplished. Offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed set forth in the Basic PWS and TO 0001 PWS. Offeror’s grasp and understanding of the methods and techniques required to perform in the technical areas set forth in the Basic PWS and Sample TO PWS. This subfactor has three

(3) elements:

(i) Completeness and Accuracy - The proposal indicates an understanding of the technical areas and contractor responsibilities set forth in the Basic PWS and TO 0001 PWS. The proposal reflects the Contractor’s required actions to successfully complete all areas of the Basic PWS and TO 0001 PWS.

(ii) Clarity – The proposal is clearly worded and unambiguous.

(iii) Soundness of Approach – The proposal describes accepted practices and demonstrates processes and procedures used to meet the requirements of the Basic PWS and TO 0001 PWS.

The Technical Factor Rating will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable. The components of each subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks and uncertainties. Each subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable based upon these collective findings.

The compilation of these subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the factor rating. The Technical Factor

Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue 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.

Purple 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.

Green 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.

Yellow 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.

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

Findings Definitions

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

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

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

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

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

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

2. FACTOR II & SUBFACTORS – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the Basic PWS, Sample TO PWS, and future Task Orders.

The following approach will be taken in the evaluation of past performance:

(a) Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the attached Past Performance

Questionnaire in Section J.

(b) The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (to include Major Subcontractors and Joint Venture

Partners) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of Subcontractors. Major Subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 10 percent or more of the proposed effort. If a Joint Venture is not assigned, the

Government will evaluate the prime offeror. A prime offeror is defined as the prime offeror that provides a signed

Joint Venture agreement or an approved DoD/Army Protégé agreement within their proposal. In the case of an assigned Joint Venture, the Government will consider the relevant experience and past performance history of the stated primary joint venture (if a primary joint venture partner is assigned) and will evaluate the individual venture partners of the proposed joint venture that are expected to perform a meaningful role (10 percent or more of the proposed effort) in evaluating the past performance. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three (3) years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in

Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the Contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local Government or commercial contracts for same or similar services for Administrative Support Services under the same North American Industry Classification System

(NAICS) 541611-Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services or other related

NAICS codes similar in complexity and scope to the efforts required by this RFP. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three (3) years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three (3) years without regard to the contract award date.

(c) Offerors shall submit the first page of Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror, major

Subcontractor (s), and Joint Venture Partner in performance or awarded during the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The offeror shall provide past performance information on a minimum of three (3) contracts, but no more than five (5), of a similar nature. The

Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

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

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 shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. Relevancy will be further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Relevancy to a Government Laboratory;

b. Relevancy to the Army;

c. Relevant;

(i)

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

(ii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(iii) 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 gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

3. FACTOR III & SUBFACTORS – COST EVALUATION APPROACH

The contract will be an IDIQ contract utilizing a CPFF task order contract type. The Government will determine cost reasonableness for this effort on the basis of the competitive offers received, in accordance with FAR 15.404-

1(b)(2). The Government will also evaluate cost realism of the offerors’ proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-

1(d) to determine the probable cost of performance. The probable cost may differ from the proposed and should reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. The base program and all option years (if applicable), shall be included in the cost/price calculation.

Should the Government determine proposed costs are unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk.

Cost Realism Requirements:

1) Probable Cost is the Government’s estimation of the cost of completing the contract using the offeror’s technical and management approaches, adjusted by any additional cost to the Government, including use of the

Government facilities and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) requirements other than those specified in the PWS. In evaluating this area, the following criteria will be used:

(a) The offeror’s proposed rates, factors, and expenses will be examined to substantiate utilization of consistent forward-pricing procedures, i.e., negotiated forward-pricing rates, if applicable, or rates and factors Contractors ordinarily utilize in proposals if no negotiated forward-pricing agreement exists. This includes indirect expense rates, projected rates, and projected expense pools.

(b) The rates and factors shall then be applied to the quantitative and qualitative analyses of the labor hours, travel, and other direct cost factors which shall be proposed to accomplish the required efforts for the base effort and all options.

(c) Probable cost shall include a consideration of the evaluated quantitative and qualitative proposal in relation to the costs proposed against that resource mix. Probable cost shall include a comparison of proposed rates with factors, as determined by the Government to be equitable. These factors shall include wage determinations included in this RFP as well as proposed professional compensation plans and average salary/wage rates. The comparison serves as a basis for determining the amount of risk inherent in an offeror’s proposal.

(d) The offeror shall ensure that a complete breakdown of costs is provided by major Subcontractors.

Major Subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A complete evaluation of major Subcontractors’ probable cost will be performed in the same manner as the offeror’s as defined in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and this paragraph.

(e) For evaluation purposes only, in determining probable cost for options in the out-years, wage determination rates shall be escalated three (3) percent per year. However, if the offeror substantiates higher wage rates and justifies a different escalation factor, those wage/escalation factors will be utilized.

(f) The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all Contract Line Item

Numbers (CLINs) and Subline Item Number (SLIN) costs, including any potential options.

(g) Contractor support may be utilized to support proposal evaluation in a non-decision making capacity.

(h) A competitive range may be established based on the ratings of this factor.