PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

MI. NOTICE: The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference: A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION CONTRACT PROVISIONS 52.217-04 52.217-05 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS EXERCISED AT TIME OF CONTRACT AWARD (JUN 1988) EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

B. AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND FAR CONTRACT PROVISIONS: NONE MII. NOTICE: The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated in full text: M1.0 SOURCE SELECTION. M1.1 Basis for Contract Award. This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable Offeror with the lowest evaluated cost or price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation. While no trades will be conducted, in accordance with FAR 15.304 (e), all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost/price. M1.2 Award Without Discussions. It is the Governments intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offerors best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that discussions are necessary. M1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds. M1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror shall be eliminated from the competitive range.

SECTION M FA9200-11-R-0386 PAGE M - 1

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED. The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and subfactors described below: Factor I Technical Acceptability (TA) Subfactor TA-1: Technical Approach Subfactor TA-2: Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Subfactor TA-3: Transition Subfactor TA-4: Subcontracting Plan Subfactor TA-5: Experience Subfactor TA-6: Past Performance Factor II Cost/Price M2.1 Evaluation Methodology. Technical acceptability will be evaluated on all offers. Only those offers determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Only those offerors determined to have met the acceptability standards for the non cost factors, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Finally, price will be evaluated. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-cost factors. M3.0 FACTOR I - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY FACTOR. The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. Subfactors TA-1-5 will be evaluated for each offeror and given a rating of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable or Unacceptable. Subfactor TA-6 will be evaluated for each offeror and given a rating of either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any Unacceptable subfactor assessments will render the offer unawardable. Definitions for Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable and Unacceptable (RSBMA) are given below: Rating
Acceptable Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable Unacceptable

Description
The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance. The proposal does not clearly meet some specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance, but there is reason to believe that through minor revisions, an acceptable proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered unacceptable. The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contract performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

Table 3.0 Rating Description

SECTION M FA9200-11-R-0386 PAGE M - 2

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated against the following Subfactors. M3.1 Subfactor TA-1: Technical Approach. Proposals will be evaluated to determine the Offerors ability to manage a workforce capable of providing engineering support in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS), including management of the workload and workforce. Proposals shall demonstrate technical performance in the four integrated program life-cycle phases of Research Development Acquisition Test and Evaluation (RDAT&E). This data will be used to assess the Offerors scope of understanding and depth and breadth of experience involving all/some weapon system life cycle activities within the program life-cycle phase (e.g., Research and Development Planning, Weapon System Acquisition, Test and Evaluation, and Fielding Operations) and the technical resources used by the Offeror to address the degree of complexity associated with the work. To demonstrate relevant technical capabilities, Offerors should identify the specific programs worked, provide brief descriptions of the required effort, the type of technical resources used to support the programs and any significant accomplishments. Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offerors proposal thoroughly addresses all of the following: a. The Offeror proposes a viable concept and approach for providing the range of Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) systems engineering support specified in the PWS, including: 1. A method for routinely integrating knowledge gained into a learning tool to facilitate the use of the knowledge across applicable current and future efforts. 2. A logical and sound approach for the exchange of ideas and information among employees working on different programs (potentially, in various life-cycle stages). 3. A sound, deliberate approach for the development and presentation of recommendations for improvements to the Government. 4. A concept for effectively providing timely and high quality technical documentation to support the systems engineering process across all product areas and customers. 5. A structure identifying key technical capabilities with the specific experience, education, and other qualifications needed to provide sound and consistent System Engineering presence A&AS support. 6. A cross-utilization plan that allows for the availability, mobilization, and application of technical and engineering personnel across the many similar and diverse situations presented by Air Armament Center (AAC) requirements. 7. A process for applying subject matter experts (SME) to high priority, unique, urgent or highly complex issues in a specified engineering field beyond the technical knowledge and experience of a Level 4- Recognized Professional Authority. The
SECTION M FA9200-11-R-0386 PAGE M - 3

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Technical and Engineering Acquisition Support (TEAS) 6 contractor will propose SME technical services and cost at time of need. Information provided in Section L, paragraph 5.3.6.1 will be used in the assessment of the Contractors ability to hire, retain and manage subject matter experts as needed. Offerors response must describe how SMEs will be identified, accessed, allocated, and assigned in an efficient manner. b. The Offeror proposes an effective approach to identify and address engineering problems typically arising from weapons system integration, including specific examples of how the approach would improve the exchange of information to alleviate these problems. c. The Offeror proposes an effective approach to identify and address engineering problems typically arising from weapons system mission planning, including specific examples of how the approach would improve the exchange of information to alleviate these problems. d. The Offeror proposes an effective approach to identify and address engineering problems typically arising from test and evaluation, including specific examples of how the approach would improve the exchange of information to alleviate these problems. e. The Offeror proposes a sound staffing plan which addresses the ability to hire, train, retain and manage a qualified and capable technical workforce that can accomplish the entire scope of the TEAS 6 effort in accordance with the PWS and includes: 1. An approach for staffing the TEAS 6 labor category and skill level requirements. 2. Labor category and skill level qualifications in sufficient detail to ensure a sound understanding of TEAS 6 labor requirements and efficient application of that understanding as evidence by the sample task response. (These qualifications will become a contract attachment upon contract award.) 3. A viable approach and a clear understanding of employee compensation and benefits necessary to assure a qualified workforce will be available to address all task orders (TO). The approach shall describe the Offerors compliance with FAR 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. 4. A comprehensive plan for one-time and recurring training that identifies, training subjects, number of hours per subject, and schedule. 5. Knowledge of the security clearance process and provides an efficient and effective method for ensuring properly cleared personnel are available promptly to provide the required mix of skills and clearance levels necessary to accomplish the TEAS 6 mission. This includes how tasks will be supported in lieu of cleared personnel assigned to any task. f. The Offeror provides a sound approach for managing business operations, security, safety, human resources, and other related functions across multiple locations and identification
SECTION M FA9200-11-R-0386 PAGE M - 4

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

and mitigation of any potential risks associated with management of a diverse workforce performing at several locations, as well as requirements for mission essential travel to hostile environments and the impacts to benefits and costs. g. The Offeror proposes a comprehensive process for managing performance, schedule and cost to ensure all TEAS 6 PWS requirements are met and includes the following: 1. Descriptions of any business management tools and methods and demonstrates how the tools will be used. 2. Identification of performance measures/metrics to be used to make performance selfassessments, and how business processes and cost efficiencies will be evaluated and improved. This shall also describe how the contractor will exchange this information with the Government. h. The sample task order response will also be used to evaluate this subfactor. M3.2 Subfactor TA-2: Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror's proposal for its potential to create, and thereupon to effectively dispel, the appearance and also the existence of OCI which generate the concerns enumerated in FAR Part 9.5 and the TEAS 6 Program impacts discussed in the Section L instructions pertinent to this subfactor, in addition to compliance with the EGLIN-H012 Avoidance of Organizational Conflict of Interest Clause. Evaluators will use information provided by Offerors and other sources of readily available information from both Government sources (to include requiring activities, contracting offices, finance and audit activities) and non-Government sources (to include business directories and offerors web sites) to identify the financial interests of the Offerors, including subcontractors, and their affiliates. Definition of affiliate is any person or organization with which the contractor is associated through an ownership, control, or direct financial interest. Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offerors proposal thoroughly addresses all of the following. a. Full disclosure of all business activities called for in Section L 5.4. b. A thorough understanding of all facets of the Government's OCI concerns and provides evidence of relevant facts and circumstances to ameliorate them. c. Commits the Offeror to implementing OCI mitigation measures to be expressly incorporated into the TEAS 6 contract which: 1. Provide genuine, substantive amelioration of OCI concerns;

SECTION M FA9200-11-R-0386 PAGE M - 5

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2. Provide an administratively efficient means to achieve the proposed measures in a timely manner responsive to TEAS 6 Program requirements; 3. Promote Government confidence in the enforceability/effectiveness of the proposed measures without substantial Government supervision; and 4. Promote a reasonable expectation that the Government's industry customers will have confidence in the enforceability/effectiveness of the proposed measures. If the offeror proposes a mitigation plan, evaluators will analyze the feasibility of mitigating the OCI. An acceptable mitigation plan must be effective. An acceptable mitigation plan should not substantially rely upon the Government to have the available technical expertise and manpower to engage in frequent or detailed monitoring or enforcement. d. Demonstrates that the Offeror's OCI situation and approach will not: 1. Result in a contractor, subcontractor or an affiliate of either participating as a prime contractor or major subcontractor in the development or production of any program within the AFPEO/WP portfolio; 2. Inhibit TEAS 6 Contractor access to information from industry Prime Contractors of Government TEAS Program customers; 3. Impair the TEAS 6 Contractor or any subcontractor from qualifying as a Covered Government Support Contractor as defined under DFARS 252.227-7013 and 252227-7014 for programs within the AFPEO/WP portfolio; and 4. Adversely affect the Offeror's ability or perceived ability to provide independent and impartial TEAS 6 support. M3.3 Subfactor TA-3: Transition. This subfactor will evaluate the Offeror's Transition approach to determine the ability to successfully accomplish a seamless transition into TEAS 6 Program performance as required by the PWS. Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the Offerors proposal thoroughly addresses all of the following. a. The Offeror identifies all activities necessary for the Transition period to ensure a qualified workforce is ready to perform when TOs are awarded. An acceptable plan shall describe a process to staff the projected positions supporting approximately 100 TOs at least 15 calendar days prior to the end of the Transition phase. b. The Offeror provides a realistic, structured schedule for accomplishing all Transition activities.

SECTION M FA9200-11-R-0386 PAGE M - 6

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

c. The Offeror identifies and describes all risks associated with Transition of the TEAS 6 workload and provides acceptable risk mitigation activities that will minimize cost and schedule impacts, including a viable method for transferring work from the incumbent TEAS V Contractor. d. The Offeror identifies a plan to obtain the required individual security clearances and the facility requirements as specified in the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) and the PWS. e. The Offeror includes a realistic, structured plan and schedule for obtaining capability to achieve technical proficiency to comply with the scope of work identified in the PWS. NOTE: Government facilities for TEAS 6 business management will not be provided. M3.4 Subfactor TA-4: Subcontracting Plan. The Offerors Subcontracting Plan shall be evaluated and shall demonstrate the Offerors ability to successfully implement a viable technique/process to manage subcontractors and explain how the Offeror will ensure execution of subcontracts. Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the Offerors proposal thoroughly addresses all of the following. a. For other than Small Businesses: The Offeror presents a sound approach for managing subcontracted efforts and ensuring the requirements of Section H, Special Contract Requirements, EGLIN-H016 Subcontracting Requirements (DEC 2010) are met. Rationale for specific tasks or functions to be subcontracted must represent a sound approach, consistent with efficient contract performance, with an appropriate degree of control exercised by the Prime. The Offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan fully complies with FAR 52.219-9 and must clearly identify and commit to participation by small businesses. b. For Small Business: Present a sound approach for managing subcontracted efforts and ensuring the requirements of Section H, Special Contract Requirements, EGLIN-H016 Subcontracting Requirements (DEC 2010) are met. M3.5 Subfactor TA-5: Experience. The Offerors proposal shall demonstrate recent experience in all weapon system life cycle activities (e.g., Research and Development Planning, Weapon System Acquisition, Test and Evaluation, and Fielding Operations). Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the Offerors proposal thoroughly addresses the following. a. The Offeror provides documentation demonstrating performance supporting activities in each of the following weapon system life cycle activities: Research and Development Planning, Weapon System Acquisition, Test and Evaluation, and Fielding Operations.
SECTION M FA9200-11-R-0386 PAGE M - 7

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

b. To be considered acceptable, the Offerors experience: 1. May be demonstrated either through the prime contractor or the Offerors team; and either through a single prior contract or by a combination of prior contracts; 2. Shall encompass efforts with a cumulative annual dollar value of at least $80M and Contract Manpower Equivalent (CME) equivalency of at least 350 CME per year; 3. Shall consist of activities performed within three years from the issue date of this solicitation. M3.6 Subfactor TA-6: Past Performance. The Government will evaluate information about each Offerors past performance and will rate Offerors as either acceptable or unacceptable. The following areas will be considered in the evaluation: 1) meeting technical requirements; 2) meeting schedule requirements; 3) controlling contract costs; and 4) managing the contracted effort. The Government will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by Offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past performance data, if available from other sources. The Government will use the following definitions as guidelines in evaluating present and past performance (note that unavailability, due to non-existence of recent and relevancy past performance records or information, cannot result in a rating of unacceptable): Rating Acceptable Unacceptable Description Based on the Offerors performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the Offerors performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

In determining the Government's expectation (and hence the acceptability or unacceptability), recent and relevant contracts and TOs will be reviewed and the Offerors ability to successfully 1) implement their proposed Technical Approach (TA-1), 2) manage OCI issues (TA-2), 3) Transition into contract/TO performance (TA-3), 4) implement their proposed Subcontracting Plan (TA-4), 5) apply their Experience to new contracts/TOs (TA-5), and 6) perform at the proposed price will be assessed. Offerors will be assigned a single rating that is an aggregate of all contracts reviewed. Any unacceptable rating given to a small business will be referred to the Small Business Administration pursuant to FAR 15.101-2(b) and 19.6 for resolution. The past performance evaluation will only be conducted on information determined to be recent and relevant. a. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the Past Performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing (and have at least one year of performance history) or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of

SECTION M FA9200-11-R-0386 PAGE M - 8

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

issuance of this solicitation. Past Performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. b. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Subfactors and Cost/Price Factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical Subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). As shown in the Table M3.6, in determining the Degree of Relevancy, consideration will be given to the size and type of effort as well as type of requirement, level of complexity, and scope within each of the Technical Proposal Subfactors (TA-1-5) and price. The relevancy assessment will be determined by the following combined factors: 1. The type of effort (e.g., task ordering contracts, technical and engineering support, advisory and assistance services). 2. The level of technical complexity (e.g., research and development planning, weapon system acquisition, test and evaluation, and fielding operations). 3. The scope (e.g., breadth, depth, and skill level(s) of engineering specialties involved). 4. The magnitude (size and amount of effort) (e.g., manpower equivalent and annual awarded contract value). This information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts/TOs that are most similar to the current acquisition requirements and will have a greater impact on the Offerors overall rating. The Government is not bound by the Offerors opinion of relevancy. A relevancy determination of the Offerors past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s), and the roles/responsibilities proposed for each to be assigned in satisfying TEAS 6 requirements. In determining relevancy for individual contracts/TOs, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teammate, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Degree of Relevancy HIGHLY RELEVANT (HR) Description Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires, as described above.

SECTION M FA9200-11-R-0386 PAGE M - 9

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. TABLE M3.6: Degree of Relevancy M3.6.1 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will assess the Offerors ability (which includes the extent of its subcontractors or teaming partners involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offerors demonstrated present and past record of performance, including cost and schedule. For each recent Past Performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed, for the Technical Subfactors and Cost/Price Factor, (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the Past Performance questionnaire responses, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and commercial clients. It may include interviews with Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) officials or other sources known to the Government. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the Offerors evaluated Past Performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation ProgramDisadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider how the Offerors evaluated Past Performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. The Government will seek clarification regarding Past Performance for any offeror determined to be unacceptable if that offeror did not previously have an opportunity to comment on any adverse past performance information received. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. Past Performance regarding predecessor companies, that have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated using the same process as Past Performance information for the principal Offeror, with the basis for relevancy being their proposed roles and responsibilities on TEAS 6. Past Performance references may be discounted or not considered at all when responses received are from interested parties. Past performance information using IDIQ task ordering contracts will generally be assessed at the contract level. However, if a teammate performed on a prior effort solely as a subcontractor, and did so only on discrete TOs, the agency may consider the past performance in performing those TOs, but not at the contract level.
SECTION M FA9200-11-R-0386 PAGE M - 10

RELEVANT (R) SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR) NOT RELEVANT (NR)

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

In evaluating Past Performance, the Government will give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most recent and relevant to the effort described in this RFP. The Government will consider the Offerors Past Performance in aggregate, including subcontractors, joint ventures, and teaming partners. M4.0 FACTOR II - COST/PRICE FACTOR. The Offeror's Cost/Price proposal will not be rated or scored; it will be evaluated for its reasonableness. The Offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed and evaluated for the basic contract period and all option periods. The evaluated Cost/Price may include adjustments to offset any competitive advantage from the use of additional Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)/Government Furnished Property (GFP)/Government Furnished Facilities (GFF) (e.g., GFE/GFP/GFF not furnished to all Offerors). To facilitate the evaluation of proposal information requested in Section L of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, DCMA, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), U.S. Department of Labor, Global Insight Indices and any other resource available to the Government. For this solicitation the Government will develop and utilize an overall Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEP) to evaluate each Offeror's Cost/Price proposal. This overall TEP will represent a sum total of all of the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) (including Government provided CLIN amounts). For CLINs 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, and 5001 the individual TEPs developed by the Offeror and evaluated by the Government within the Offerors solicitation Attachment L7, Government TEP Format will be based upon Government provided hours and Government provided labor categories and skill levels. The Offeror will only provide Fully Burdened Labor Rate (FBLR) information within solicitation Attachment L-7, Government TEP Format in order to compute their individual TEPs for CLINs 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, and 5001. All five Attachment L-7 Government TEP Format worksheets shall be computed by the Offeror. For all Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLINs (CLINs 1003, 1004, 2003, 2004, 3003, 3004, 4003, 4004, 5003, and 5004) the Government will evaluate each of these CLINs as $0.00. For all Labor Labor Hour CLINs (CLINs 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002, and 5002) the Government will evaluate each of these CLINs as $0.00, however, the Offeror's proposed FBLRs for use under these CLINs shall be the same as those proposed for CLINs 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, and 5001 LaborFFP and the Offeror's proposed Labor-Labor Hour FBLRs will be evaluated as part of the LaborFFP CLINs evaluation. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of price balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Once the Offerors proposed use of any Government Furnished Property (GFP), Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), and/or any other Government Furnished Resource (GFX) not
SECTION M FA9200-11-R-0386 PAGE M - 11

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

furnished to all Offerors is determined to be acceptable by the CO, the Government will eliminate to the maximum extent practical any potential competitive price advantage resulting from the Offerors proposed use of the GFP, GFE, and/or any other GFX. The Government, using its best judgment, will establish an estimated monetary value for any and all Offeror proposed GFP, GFE, and/or GFX and add this estimated monetary value to the Offerors overall TEP, determined within the Cost/Price evaluation. Per FAR 45.202(a), The Contracting Officer shall consider any potentially unfair competitive advantage that may result from the contractor possessing Government property. This shall be done by adjusting the offers by applying, for evaluation purposes only, a rental equivalent evaluation factor. The Offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. Once the CO has determined that adequate price competition exists within this source selection, reasonableness will be evaluated, at a minimum, based on the comparison of the Offerors overall TEP with all other competitive offerors overall TEPs received in response to the solicitation. M5.0 DISCUSSIONS. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of Past Performance information) or respond to adverse Past Performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

SECTION M FA9200-11-R-0386 PAGE M - 12