Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award



Activity 5.4 and 5.5: Section M ExcerptModeling and Simulation SystemSection M:Evaluation Factors for AwardforW11111-15-R-00241 July 20XXTABLE OF CONTENTS TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Section M Excerpt PAGEREF _Toc457106994 \h 1M-01.CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE PAGEREF _Toc457106995 \h 3M-02.BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD PAGEREF _Toc457106996 \h 3M-02.1Competitive, Best Value Trade Off Source Selection PAGEREF _Toc457106997 \h 3 M-02.2 Acceptable Subcontracting Plan……………………………………………..………………..………3M-03.EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS PAGEREF _Toc457106998 \h 3M-03.1Factors/Subfactors and Their Relative Order of Importance PAGEREF _Toc457106999 \h 3M-03.4Evaluation Definitions PAGEREF _Toc457107000 \h 4M-04.EVALUATION OF OFFERORS PROPOSALS PAGEREF _Toc457107001 \h 4M-04.1EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL FACTOR (FACTOR 1) PAGEREF _Toc457107002 \h 5M-04.1.1Technical Subfactor 1 (TS1) – Overarching Technical Approach PAGEREF _Toc457107003 \h 5M-04.1.2Technical Subfactor 2 (TS2) – Performance Work Statement (PWS) PAGEREF _Toc457107004 \h 6M-04.1.3Technical Subfactor 3 (TS3) – OSF Development (Order 0001) PAGEREF _Toc457107005 \h 6M-04.1.4Technical Subfactor 4 (TS4) – SSF Sustainment (Order 0002) PAGEREF _Toc457107006 \h 7M-04.1.5Technical Subfactor 5 (TS5) – DSA Sustainment (Order 0003) PAGEREF _Toc457107007 \h 7M-04.2EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT FACTOR (FACTOR 2) PAGEREF _Toc457107008 \h 7M-04.2.1Management Subfactor 1 (MS1) – Management Plan PAGEREF _Toc457107009 \h 7M-04.2.2Management Subfactor 2 (MS2) – Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) PAGEREF _Toc457107010 \h 8M-04.2.3Management Subfactor 3 (MS3) – Risk Management Plan PAGEREF _Toc457107011 \h 8M-04.2.4Management Subfactor 4 (MS4) – Small Business Participation and Commitment PAGEREF _Toc457107012 \h 8M-04.3EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (FACTOR 3) PAGEREF _Toc457107013 \h 9M-04.3.1Recency Assessment PAGEREF _Toc457107014 \h 9M-04.3.2Relevancy Assessment PAGEREF _Toc457107015 \h 9M-04.3.3Small Business Past Performance PAGEREF _Toc457107016 \h 10M-04.3.4Performance Confidence Assessment PAGEREF _Toc457107017 \h 10M-04.3.5Adverse Past Performance PAGEREF _Toc457107018 \h 11M-04.4EVALUATION OF COST/PRICE FACTOR (FACTOR 4) PAGEREF _Toc457107019 \h 11M-04.4.1Cost Reasonableness PAGEREF _Toc457107020 \h 11M-04.4.2Cost Realism PAGEREF _Toc457107021 \h 11M-04.4.3Probable Cost PAGEREF _Toc457107022 \h 11CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE N/A BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARDCompetitive, Best Value Trade Off Source SelectionThis source selection is a best-value trade off competitive source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.3. The Government will select the overall best offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Management, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1; meet all requirements of the solicitation; conform to all required terms and conditions; and, include all required certifications, unless a proposed exception is accepted by the Government. The Government will select for award the proposal determined to be the most advantageous to the Government considering all the evaluation factors in Section M. Even though price is a substantial factor in source selection, this competition may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost/price difference. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.M-02.2 Acceptable Subcontracting PlanThe apparently successful Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be assessed in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 requirements and must be determined as ‘acceptable’ by the Contracting Officer in the event of an award. The Subcontracting Plan is a materiel requirement of the solicitation and any resultant contract. A Small Business Subcontracting Plan deemed as ‘unacceptable’ will preclude an offeror from being eligible for contract award. To the extent there is any overlapping content between an Offerors’ proposed Subcontracting Plan and its proposed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (see L-02.3), the overlapping content must be consistent for a Subcontracting Plan to be deemed as ‘acceptable.’M-03.Evaluation Factors and SubfactorsThere are four evaluation factors: Technical, Management, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The Technical, Management, and Past Performance factors are considered in descending order of importance and, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. The Government intends to award a single contract to the Offeror that provides the best overall value to the government. The Government reserves the right to make a single contract award or no contract award based on funds availability.M-03.1Factors/Subfactors and their Relative Order of ImportanceThe SSA will select the Offeror whose proposal is considered the best value to the Government consistent with the factors and subfactors listed below. Evaluation Factors/Subfactors Relative Order of ImportanceEvaluation FactorsRelative ImportanceFactor 1 (F1): TechnicalMost important non-cost/price factor. Factor 1 Technical subfactors (TS1, TS2, TS3, TS4, TS5, TS6 and TS7) are listed in descending order of importance.Subfactor TS1: Overarching Technical ApproachThere are no subelements to TS1Subfactor TS2: Performance Work StatementThere are no subelements to TS2Subfactor TS3: OSF Development (Order 0001)There are no subelements to TS3Subfactor TS4: SSF Sustainment (Order 0002)There are no subelements to TS4Subfactor TS5: DSA Sustainment (Order 0003)There are no subelements to TS5Factor 2 (F2): ManagementLess important than F1 Technical and more important than F3 Past Performance. Factor 2’s subfactor MS1 is significantly more important than MS2. MS2 is more important than MS3. MS3 is more important than MS4.Subfactor MS1: Management PlanThere are no subelements to MS1Subfactor MS2: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)There are no subelements to MS2Subfactor MS3: Risk Management PlanThere are no subelements to MS3Subfactor MS4: Small Business Participation & CommitmentThere are no subelements to MS4Factor 3 (F3): Past PerformanceLess important than F2 Management and more important than F4 Cost/PriceFactor 4 (F4): Cost/PriceWhen combined the non-cost/Price Factors F1 Technical, F2 Management and F3 Past Performance are significantly more important than F4 Cost/PriceM-03.4Evaluation DefinitionsEach proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation and its stated evaluation factors and subfactors for award. Proposals will not be compared or measured against each other during the evaluation. The Government’s Technical and Management evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and the proposal’s significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, (as defined in the “Proposal Evaluation Definitions” table) and other factors identified in the solicitation. Proposal Evaluation DefinitionsDiscriminatorDefinitionStrengthAn aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specific performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.WeaknessA flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.Significant WeaknessA flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.DeficiencyA material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.M-04.EVALUATION OF OFFERORS PROPOSALSTechnical Evaluation Rating InformationThe Government will assign a combined technical and risk adjectival rating (see the “Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method” Table 1) to each Technical subfactor and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the subfactor’s relative strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks. Subfactor ratings will be rolled up into an overall Factor bined Technical/Risk Rating MethodTable 1.(From Source Selection Procedures, April 2016)Color RatingAdjectival RatingDescriptionBlueOutstandingProposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.PurpleGoodProposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.GreenAcceptableProposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.YellowMarginalProposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.RedUnacceptableProposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.M-04.1EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL FACTOR (FACTOR 1)M-04.1.1Technical Subfactor 1 (TS1) – Overarching Technical ApproachThe Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Technical Approach demonstrates: M-04.1.1.2Use of existing hardware/software and executability of the Offeror’s proposed Technical Approach incorporating existing Single Stimulation Framework (SSF) and Digital Simulation Architecture (DSA) framework capabilities into an integrated single OSF framework.M-04.1.1.3Understanding and implementation of the Engineering Architecture Board (EAB) process for designing, testing, fielding, and sustainment.M-04.1.1.4A globally distributed mode in hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) and digital environments with many nodes in many states.M-04.1.1.6Composability, allowing user-determined configurability (e.g., to execute in time-stepped, conservative discrete event, or optimistic discrete event time-management modes depending on what mode the controller is in and what models and/or labs are plugged in).M-04.1.1.7A single controller for either standalone or distributed operations, and for all-digital, all-HWIL, or mixed simulation configurations at the discretion of the user.M-04.1.1.8Automatic reconfiguration based on what is connected to its network and its simulation operator console settings.M-04.1.1.10Capability to support statistical / "Monte Carlo" analysis in a timely manner.M-04.1.1.11Automatic sensing when a model or element lab has dropped offline and reconfigures itself accordingly.M-04.1.1.12Ease of updating or expanding Phenomenology, Lethality, Environment, Threat & Communications (PLET-C) algorithms used by the framework.M-04.1.1.13Ease of being federated with joint and other external simulations (JVLC, JTA, etc).M-04.1.1.14Ease of updating/reconfiguring scenarios with minimum turnaround time.M-04.1.1.15Adaptability to controller-induced changes and updates within a scenario run to the configuration or scenario game board.M-04.1.1.16Ease of configuring, updating, and using capabilities and tools.M-04.1.1.17It fully captures the entire scope of the SOO/PWS and discrete requirements (i.e. Orders 0001, 0002, 0003,) as appropriate to the Offeror’s Technical Approach. M-04.1.1.18Full range of activities required for development, fielding, transitions and sustainment milestones as captured in a Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). The IMS must: demonstrate a thorough understanding of the program; integrate the contractor’s technical and risk management approach; show the critical path to meet OSF schedule and key dates presented in the Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP); meet all identified schedule constraints; and, be executable within the projected budget (see Attachment L-14). M-04.1.1.20Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI) Level 3 certification at a minimum. Demonstrated higher certification levels will be considered more favorably. M-04.1.2Technical Subfactor 2 (TS2) – Performance Work Statement (PWS)The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed PWS:M-04.1.2.1Presents a thorough understanding of, and ability to efficiently meet, OSF requirements, objectives, and constraints.M-04.1.2.2Fully captures entire scope of the SOO and discrete requirements (i.e. Orders 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004 and 0005) as appropriate to the Offeror’s Technical Approach in performance-based language.M-04.1.3Technical Subfactor 3 (TS3) – OSF Development (Order 0001)The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed OSF Development demonstrates: M-04.1.3.1Executability within the projected budget and current technology.M-04.1.3.2Traceability to the IMS.M-04.1.3.3Preparation for OSF Deployment.M-04.1.3.4An adequate software testing, evaluation, and acceptance process for software development and version releases.M-04.1.3.5Preparation to ensure readiness for test events (inline and online).M-04.1.3.6A transition plan describing how OSF deployment will merge SSF and DSA functions.M-04.1.3.7The ability to produce a software development methodology which includes a Software Development Plan (SDP) and a Software Support Plan (SSP).M-04.1.4Technical Subfactor 4 (TS4) – SSF Sustainment (Order 0002)The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed SSF Sustainment demonstrates: M-04.1.4.1A viable, realistic, logical methodology for: transitioning from the incumbent SSF contractor; maintaining software and hardware platforms; and, incorporating limited updates to preserve M&S functionality.M-04.1.4.2How the contractor’s schedule supports the government’s constraining budget and IMTP dates.M-04.1.4.3An understanding of input/output requirements and products as they affect the IMS.M-04.1.5Technical Subfactor 5 (TS5) – DSA Sustainment (Order 0003)The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed DSA Sustainment demonstrates: M-04.1.5.1A viable, realistic, logical methodology for: transitioning from the incumbent DSA contractor; maintaining software and hardware platforms; and, incorporating limited updates to preserve M&S functionality.M-04.1.5.2How the contractor’s schedule supports the government’s constraining budget and IMTP dates.M-04.1.5.3An understanding of input/output requirements and products as they affect the IMS.M-04.2EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT FACTOR (FACTOR 2)Management Evaluation Rating InformationThe Government will assign a combined technical and risk adjectival rating (see the “Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method” Table 1) to each Management subfactor (except small business participation and commitment) and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the subfactor’s relative strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks. Subfactor ratings will be rolled up into an overall Factor rating.The Government management evaluation team will evaluate the overall management capability of each Offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements. .M-04.2.1Management Subfactor 1 (MS1) – Management PlanThe Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Management Approach demonstrates: M-04.2.1.1Efficient and effective management methodologies, processes, and procedures to achieve OSF objectives, to include flow-down to subcontractors.M-04.2.1.2Ability to successfully manage an integrated team, inclusive of subcontractors / teammates.M-04.2.1.4Availability of qualified personnel at Order start.M-04.2.1.5Compliance with required DOD and regulations, instructions, and training requirements, with allowance for the Offeror to describe which regulations and standards are most applicable M-04.2.1.6The extent to which the qualifications and experience of Key Personnel reduce performance risk.M-04.2.1.7Full capture of the entire scope of each of the three Orders and discrete requirements.M-04.2.1.8Compliance with constraining Government target dates (i.e., contract termination /option exercise dates, end of Fiscal Year budget execution, etc.) for SSF and DSA transition to OSF.M-04.2.1.9A workable Quality Management approach which includes recurring communications with the Government.M-04.2.2Management Subfactor 2 (MS2) – Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) The Government will evaluate the ability to demonstrate a comprehensive program understanding in the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that integrates the contractor’s technical and risk management approach and shows the critical path to meet the OSF schedule and key dates as presented in the Integrated Master Test Plan (IMTP).M-04.2.3Management Subfactor 3 (MS3) – Risk Management PlanThe Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Risk Management Plan for effective risk identification and mitigation methodologies, processes, and procedures to achieve OSF objectives. Specifically, the Offeror will be evaluated in its mitigation strategy of the Section L Government-identified risks, and its ability to identify risks inherent in its proposal and provide an effective mitigation strategy. Offeror’s will include those risks identified by the Offeror in the base contract and all five (5) Orders/Sample Orders.M-04.2.4Management Subfactor 4 (MS4) – Small Business Participation and CommitmentThe Government will evaluate each Offeror’s commitment to use small businesses using the “Small Business Rating Method” ratings found in the Small Business Rating Method table 2. Small Business Rating MethodTable 2.(From Source Selection Procedures, April 2016)Color RatingAdjectival RatingDescriptionBlueOutstandingProposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.PurpleGoodProposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.GreenAcceptableProposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.YellowMarginalProposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.RedUnacceptableProposal does not meet small business objectives.This subfactor applies to ALL offerors, small businesses and other than small businesses (including Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Program Participants and Commercial Subcontracting Plan Holders). Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offerors proposed small business participation and commitments for this effort with higher ratings being given for proposals that exceed the small business participation requirements. Offerors that demonstrate historical achievements in excess of the 25% MQR are expected to propose at that higher MQR which will be evaluated and rated as exceeding the required MQR. Small business prime offerors own participation is included in the MQR. All offerors, shall submit a “Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD)” addressing the following criteria (small business participation requirements):M-04.2.4.1. Quantitative commitment (MQR of 25% or better) representing the extent of participation of small business firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition based on the $1 billion dollar IDIQ contract ceiling. M-04.2.4.2. Names of specific companies proposed for small business participation for orders 0001, 0002, and 0003. M-04.2.4.3. Small business participation dollars for performance of work that is directly related to Orders 0001, 0002, and 0003 and requires professional or skilled labor.M-04.2.4.4. The extent to which binding agreements are in place with at least two proposed small business team members/subcontractors for each of Orders 0001, 0002, and 003 (enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones).M-04.2.4.5. The extent to which offerors describe specific initiatives to enhance small business utilization or capabilities.M-04.2.4.6. The extent to which offerors describe specific initiatives and tools to meet future requirements to be supported by the MSS small business industrial base. The Government will review Offerors’ explanations and support documentation for proposed participation to understand the basis for what is proposed. i.e., determine the realism.M-04.3EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (FACTOR 3)Past Performance Evaluation Rating InformationThe Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance, and assign an overall performance confidence rating. The performance confidence rating will be based on the evaluation of the past performance information for recency, relevancy, and small business utilization. M-04.3.1Recency AssessmentFor evaluation purposes, “recent” is defined as an effort that is ongoing or being performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that does not meet the above conditions will be considered not recent and will not be considered for evaluation. M-04.3.2Relevancy AssessmentIn assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to such items as similarity of the size, scope, complexity, contract type, and value of the cited effort. Additionally, the Government will consider the Offeror’s cited contract’s magnitude in terms of contract value, technical content and complexity, problem resolution, lessons learned, and customer satisfaction. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government may consider as relevant, efforts performed for other agencies of federal, state, or local governments, and commercial customers. A relevancy rating will be applied using the “Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method” table 3.Past Performance Relevancy Rating MethodTable 3.Adjectival RatingDescriptionVery RelevantPresent/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.RelevantPresent/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.Somewhat RelevantPresent/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.Not RelevantPresent/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.M-04.3.3Small Business Past PerformanceThe Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror complied with FAR 52.219-8, Small Business Utilization, and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable).The extent to which the Offeror complied with FAR 52.219-8, Small Business Utilization will be evaluated based on the following:Reporting of small business performance in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)History of prompt payments to small businessesSmall business participation/utilization reporting.The extent to which the Offeror complied with FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated based on the following:Acheivement of subcontracting goalsCompliance with small business subcontracting plan requirements Timely eSRS reporting.M-04.3.4Performance Confidence AssessmentPast Performance (recency, relevancy and small business utilization) overall will be assigned a confidence rating. The Government may consider past performance information from individual contract references and in the aggregate. In evaluating Past Performance, the Government reserves the right to use information provided by the offeror, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and any additional information obtained from other sources known or identified by the Government. The Government may augment questionnaire responses through dialogue with persons completing the questionnaires. Assessment may include Government site visit(s) and surveys of sources to validate performance information. A more recent and relevant record of favorable performance may result in a higher Performance Confidence Rating than a less recent and/or relevant record of favorable performance. Offerors without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance Factor. A record of exceptional or very good confidence rating may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a record of “Neutral Confidence”.The Past Performance Factor will receive performance confidence assessment rating using the “Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method” in table 5.Performance Confidence Assessments Rating MethodTable 5.(From Source Selection Procedures, April 2016)Adjectival RatingDescriptionSubstantial ConfidenceBased on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.Satisfactory ConfidenceBased on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.Neutral ConfidenceNo 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.The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.Limited ConfidenceBased on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.No ConfidenceBased 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.M-04.3.5Adverse Past PerformanceAdverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. When relevant performance records indicate performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. IAW FAR 15.306(b)(l)(i), communications will be held with any Offeror who will be excluded from the competitive range because of adverse past performance information, unless the Offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.M-04.4EVALUATION OF COST/PRICE FACTOR (FACTOR 4)Offerors are reminded that the electronic version of all excel spreadsheets shall contain all formulas and links between spreadsheets. The Government will analyze the excel spreadsheets (electronic version of your estimating model) to determine how the prices were derived. If an Offeror fails to provide an electronic version of the proposal that contains all of the formulas and links between the spreadsheets and tables presented in its proposal, or provides excel spreadsheets that contain hard coded entries without any rationale for or explanation of the hard coded entries and cross references to source and other spreadsheets. The Government will determine the Offeror's proposal to be non-compliant with the RFP instructions and recommend to the Contracting Officer that the Offeror's proposal be eliminated from further consideration in the evaluation.The Cost/Price Volume shall be evaluated, but shall not be scored nor otherwise combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. Cost/Price will be evaluated using the Offeror's cost proposal for all Orders, proposed Fixed Composite Labor Rates (FCLRs) for all ten years, the Government's Independent Cost Estimate, and various Cost and/or Price Analysis techniques, IAW FAR Part 15.404-1. Cost/Price will be assessed as follows:M-04.4.1Cost ReasonablenessThe proposal will be evaluated to assess the reasonableness of the labor hours, material, Other Direct Cost (ODC), associated burdens and factors, and individual elements used to make up the FCLRs by labor category.M-04.4.2Cost RealismThe proposal will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the technical and management approaches proposed can be accomplished at the cost proposed. The results of the cost realism analysis: 1) will be used in the probable cost calculation; 2) will be applied to the evaluation of the technical and management areas to aid in assessing the Offeror's understanding of the magnitude and complexity of the contract requirements; and, 3) may be used in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations.M-04.4.3Probable CostThe Government’s estimated Probable Cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. The Government’s estimated Probable Cost will consist of the following elements: 1) proposed cost and fee for all Orders; 2) adjustments to reflect any additions or reductions in labor hours or other costs (excluding the FCLRs), and fee, when appropriate, to realistic levels based on the results of cost realism analysis; 3) the Government’s cost estimate for Years 6-10, using the proposed FCLRs applied against estimated hours established by the Government, plus fee applied at the Offeror’s proposed maximum rate(s); 4) the Government Specific Assessed Value associated with Government Furnished Equipment / Government Furnished Information / Government Furnished Facilities; and, 5) any additional costs to the Government which are necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach. For evaluation purposes only, the Government’s probable cost evaluation will include Offeror’s Order hours and proposed skill mix from the first five years extended against proposed FCLRs for the last five years. The number that results will be added to the Government’s probable cost as part of the best value determination. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download