Section 2052.215-79 - Contract award and evaluation of proposalsAs prescribed in 2015.209(a)(1), the contracting officer shall insert the following provision in solicitations when technical merit is more important than cost:
Contract Award and Evaluation of Proposals (OCT 1999)
(a) By use of narrative and numerical (as appropriate) scoring techniques, proposals are evaluated against the evaluation factors specified in paragraph * below. These factors are listed in their relative order of importance.(b) The Government intends to award a contract or contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value, as defined in FAR 2.101, after evaluation in accordance with the factors and subfactors in the solicitation.(c) The Government may:(1) Reject any or all proposals if the action is in the Government's interest.(2) Waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.(d) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. The Government reserves the right to seek proposal clarifications (e.g., capability issues as described in FAR 15.306(a) or minor or clerical errors as described in FAR 14.407); and hold communications as described in FAR 15.306(b)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.(e) The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit cost or prices offered, unless the offeror specifies otherwise in the proposal.(f) The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards if, after considering the additional administrative costs, it is in the Government's best interest to do so.(g) Exchanges with offerors after receipt of a proposal do not constitute a rejection or counteroffer by the Government.(h) 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 total evaluated price, 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 Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.(i) If a cost realism analysis is performed, cost realism may be considered by the source selection authority in evaluating performance or schedule risk.(j) A written award or acceptance of proposal mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time specified in the proposal shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.(k) A separate cost analysis is performed on each cost proposal. To provide a common base for evaluation of cost proposals, the level of effort data must be expressed in staff hours. Where a Contractor Spending Plan (CSP) is required by other provisions of this solicitation, consideration is given to the Plan for completeness, reasonableness, and as a measure of effective management of the effort.* To be incorporated into the solicitation.
(End of provision)
Alternate 1 (OCT 1999). As prescribed at 2015.209-70(e)(2), Alternate 1 may be used when proposals are to be evaluated on a lowest price, technically acceptable basis. Substitute the following paragraph for paragraph (b) in the clause at 2052.215-79:
(b) Although technical merit in the evaluation criteria set forth below is a factor in the evaluation of proposals, award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors,Alternate 2 (OCT 1999). As prescribed at 2015.209-70(e)(2), Alternate 2 may be used when cost and technical merit are of equal significance. Substitute the following paragraph for paragraph (b) in the clause at 2052.215-79:
(b) In the selection of a contractor, technical merit in the evaluation criteria set forth below and cost bear equal significance. To be selected for an award, the proposed cost must be realistic and reasonable.