(S-90)(1) When a cost realism evaluation will be performed, the source selection evaluation criteria shall include a notice that the proposed costs may be adjusted, for purposes of evaluation, based upon the results of the cost realism evaluation.
(2) Technical criteria may include quality standards that are based on either a minimally acceptable approach or a cost/benefit approach. When the quality desired is that necessary to meet minimum needs, proposals should be evaluated for acceptability and award made to the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer. When the quality desired is the highest affordable or that representing the best value, proposals should be evaluated on a cost/benefit basis that would permit an award based on paying appropriate premiums for measured increments of quality. When a cost/benefit approach is used, cost must carry a weight of not less than 40% unless thoroughly justified.
(3) Cost realism evaluation. (i) Cost realism evaluation involves a summary level review of the cost portion (excluding profit/fee) of the offerors' proposals to determine if the overall costs proposed are realistic for the work to be performed. Cost realism evaluation differs from the detailed cost analysis usually undertaken in a noncompetitive procurement to determine the reasonableness of the various cost elements and profit/fee to arrive at a fair and reasonable price. Data submitted only for cost realism evaluation generally will not be certified.
(ii) The purpose of cost realism evaluation is to:
(A) Verify the offeror's understanding of the requirements;
(B) Assess the degree to which the cost/price proposal reflects the approaches and/or risk assessments made in the technical proposal as well as the risk that the offeror will provide the supplies or services for the offered prices/costs; and
(C) Assess the degree to which the cost included in the cost/price proposal accurately represents the work effort included in the technical proposal.
(iii) Some examples of data and information that may be obtained to perform cost realism evaluation are:
(A) Manloading (quantity and mix of labor hours);
(B) Engineering, labor and overhead rates; and
(C) Make or buy plans.
A price analysis approach where there is adequate price history may also be a suitable and efficient means to evaluate cost realism. The amount of data required will be dependent upon the complexity of the procurement and the data already obtained by the contracting officer (e.g. information on recent Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs)).
(iv) Cost realism evaluation generally will be performed as a part of the proposal evaluation process (see 5215.605) for all competitive solicitations where a cost reimbursement contract is contemplated. For competitive solicitations contemplating a fixed price, labor hour, or time and material type contract, a cost realism evaluation would be the exception and not the rule, although its use may be appropriate where the proposal evaluation process will encompass both a cost/price evaluation and a technical evaluation. Also, where the contracting officer suspects a “buy-in” (see FAR 3.501) or a misunderstanding of the requirements as a result of reviewing the initial offers, data and information should be obtained and a cost realism evaluation performed.
(v) When cost realism data are required, the contracting officer shall not request a formal field pricing report but rather, shall request a review of only those specific areas of information necessary to allow the contracting officer to perform a cost realism evaluation. For example, the contracting officer may only need to know the current or FPRA labor and/or overhead rates. In these instances, the request for information from DCAA may be oral or written.
Title 48 published on 2012-10-01
no entries appear in the Federal Register after this date.
This is a list of United States Code sections, Statutes at Large, Public Laws, and Presidential Documents, which provide rulemaking authority for this CFR Part.