ATGR FY26 Section M 02062026.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2 – Section M Solicitation SP4706-26-R-0003

AUTOMATED TANK GAUGING – REPLACEMENT (ATG-R)

Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Basis for Award

The contract award will be made to the responsible firm whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government, all factors considered. The Government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality services considered necessary to achieve the stated objectives of this acquisition, at a fair and reasonable cost. Award will be made based on the best value/trade-off source selection process.

Firms are advised that a proposal meeting the objectives and requirements with the lowest cost may not necessarily be selected if award to a higher cost proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the Government. However, between proposals evaluated as essentially technically equal, cost may become the major consideration in selecting the best value. In the event of a single responsive proposal, the Government will conduct evaluation of technical acceptability of the proposal as well as cost analysis to determine it the proposal merits award. Technical acceptability is defined by meeting or exceeding the standards outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The proposal must demonstrate to the Government's satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a solution and approach that will ensure the successful accomplishment of each stated objective in the PWS. The Government will evaluate the submissions based on the material presented in the written proposals.

1.1. Evaluation Method

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and is determined to provide the best value to the Government. The best value determination will be based on the merits of the offer and the Offeror’s capability. The best value may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest cost or receiving the highest technical rating. An offer must be acceptable for the Offeror to be eligible for award.

OFFERS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS STATED HEREIN MAY BE

DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND REJECTED WITHOUT FURTHER EVALUATION.

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff Source Selection process to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision in which competing Offerors' technical and management approach will be evaluated as significantly more important than price. Tradeoffs will be made between technical and management approach and price only among the Offerors who have been determined to be acceptable in all other Factors. However, price is an important factor and shall be considered when preparing proposals. While the technical and management approach evaluation factors are more important than price, the importance of price as an evaluation factor increases with the degree of technical and management equality of the proposals. Accordingly, when Offerors are considered essentially equal in terms of technical and management capability, price may become the determining factor for award. The Government reserves the right to award to a lower cost Offeror when the offers

SP4706-25-R-0002, ATG-R Support

Attachment 2 are considered essentially equal in terms of technical and management capability, or when specific strengths and/or benefits associated with an offer possessing a superior technical or management approach do not support the payment of any associated premium cost. In summary, price/technical and management capability, and tradeoffs will be made.

1.2. Award without Discussion

The Government may hold discussions but reserves the right to make awards without discussion.

Proposals shall contain the Offeror’s best terms within the proposed technical and business approach and shall address all evaluation factors. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be necessary. If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (refer to FAR 15.306(c)).

1.3. No Award

The Government reserves the right not to make an award as a result of this solicitation if such an award is determined contrary to the best interest of the Government.

1.4. Single Award

The Government anticipates the award of a single Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite- Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract to the Offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and is considered to be the most advantageous to the Government.

2.0 Proposal Evaluation Factors

• Factor 1: Technical Approach

• Factor 2: Management Approach

• Factor 3: Past Performance

• Factor 4: Price

3.0 Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate proposals using the factors and subfactors listed above. Factor 1:

Technical Approach, Factor 2: Management Approach, and Factor 3: Past Performance are significantly more important than Factor 4: Price.

Note: A proposal that contains one or more deficiencies will receive a rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the Non-Price Factors and will result in the entire proposal being determined ineligible for award.

4.0 Description of Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Evaluation factors and subfactors are described herein as part of Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award in the solicitation. An Offeror’s proposal will include all the information necessary for evaluation as described in Evaluation Factors for Award. In addition, specific submission requirements for certain items are described below. The Offeror will use all Government provided documents including the PWS and its enclosures, appendices, attachments, and technical exhibits to respond to Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The quality of organization and attention to detail reflected in the Offeror’s proposal will be considered to be an indication of the quality of organization and level of capability during contract performance by the Government.

4.1. Factor 1: Technical Approach & Factor 2: Management Approach

Compliant with DFARS PGI 215.3, paragraph 3.1.2.2. the Government will utilize the following rating chart for evaluations of proposals received to support acceptability and risk determinations for Factor 1:

Technical Approach and Factor 2: Management Approach.

Factor 1: Technical Approach & Factor 2: Management Approach Proposal Ratings Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Table 1 – Factor 1: Technical Approach & Factor 2: Management Approach Proposal Ratings Chart

The Government will conduct a rigorous review, analysis, and assessment of the Offeror’s proposed technical and management approach. Factor 1: Technical Approach will evaluate the soundness of the Offeror’s technical competency to meet the requirements as described in the solicitation; specifically, the PWS and its enclosures, appendices, attachments, and technical exhibits. Factor 2: Management Approach will evaluate the soundness of the Offeror’s administrative competency to obtain, organize, orchestrate, and oversee the necessary resources to successfully complete the work. As part of this evaluation, the Government will verify that the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the Government’s procurement objectives and possesses a valid technical and management approach to completing the work at an acceptable level of risk. The Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s technical and management approach will determine how well the proposal describes:

4.1.1. Factor 1: Technical Approach

Successful execution of TO performance to render the necessary supplies and services to replace obsolete and failing ATG systems for each specific ATG-R location and scope identified in the PWS, will depend on Offeror’s technical capabilities. As such, the Offeror’s proposed technical approach must address the Government’s requirements and demonstrate a clear understanding of the Government’s procurement objectives for the ATG-R TO as described in the solicitation; specifically, PWS. The Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated based on its completeness, clarity, and feasibility. During evaluation, the Offeror’s technical approach will be reviewed to ensure it contains a concise systematic method for completing the work, including how technical risks to TO performance will be mitigated.

The technical approach will also be evaluated to validate the Offeror possesses a logical, rational, and viable framework to ensure compliance with the PWS and all other requirements for the proposed effort.

At a minimum, the Offeror’s proposal must include:

1. System Removal: Safely remove all existing obsolete or failing ATG systems and their components, including (but not limited to) MTS/Tempo Sonics (with Red Lion displays), Varec RTU 8130, and Pneumercator gauges.

When removing Varec RTU 8130 communications equipment, the Contractor will maintain this equipment in working order as found upon arrival. Before completion of the installation and departure from site, the Contractor will appropriately clean and package all RTU components and ship them to the ATG Maintenance contractor, address to be provided by the COR upon request.

2. System Installation: Replace the Veeder Root Item #TLS 350 Series, Varec RTU 8130, etc., ATG systems on small bulk tanks (less than 30K gallons) and Service Station (SSTA) tanks with Veeder-Root Item #TLS 450 Plus gauging systems, Varec RTU 8810 or 9810, or ATG system equivalent capabilities and measurements for each automated tank in the facility:

i. Product Level

ii. Interface Level/ Water Level

iii. Product Temperature

iv. Product Gross Volume

v. Product Net Volume

3. System Integration: Configure and interface the new gauging systems to the existing software on the site’s operation Console, enabling real-time tank fuel accountability and operational data communication via the site's operations console. (Refer to Appendix A and Enclosures 1-8 for detailed specifications and guidelines.)

4. System Acceptance: Successfully commission and turnover / deploy the replacement ATG solution. This will be measured by Government inspection of the supplies provided and services rendered, resulting in acceptance of completed work. Successful acceptance will include validation of ATG replacement full integration with existing software via accurate and reliable communication of tank fuel data.

The following Government sites / locations are within the scope of this contract for work performance:

• Los Alamitos AASF, CA

• Barnes ARPT ANG, MA

• Will Rogers Field ANG (Oklahoma City), OK

• Assault Craft Unit 5 (Camp Pendelton), CA

• North Island NAS/ Coronado NAB, CA

• Kings Bay NSB, GA

• Charlotte ANG, NC

• AASF Davenport, IA

4.1.2. Factor 2: Management Approach

Successful execution of TO performance to render the necessary supplies and services to replace obsolete and failing ATG systems for each specific ATG-R location and scope identified in the PWS, will depend on the Offeror’s management capabilities. As such, the Offeror’s proposed management approach must address the Government’s requirements and demonstrate a clear understanding of the Government’s procurement objectives for the ATG-R TO as described in the solicitation; specifically, PWS. This factor evaluates the soundness of the Offeror’s administrative competency to obtain, organize, orchestrate, and oversee the necessary resources to successfully complete the work. To perform the evaluation, the Government will review and assess the Offeror’s Program Management Plan (PMP) and Quality Control Plan (QCP) to determine the Offeror possesses a concise, logical, rational, and systematic method for ensuring compliance with the PWS and all other requirements for the proposed effort. While the QCP can be a subset artifact within the PMP, the combined documents must detail the Offeror’s administrative oversight, including resources, processes, and controls to ensure adherence to the Government's Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). Controls identified within the combined PMP and QCP must include the Offeror’s quality control (QC) / quality assurance (QA) actions. These documents must also identify key personnel and demonstrate sufficient administrative risk mitigation strategies to render the supplies and services to successfully administer the ATG-R TO.

At a minimum, the Offeror’s combined PMP and QCP must include:

1. Organization: A logical method for organizing all content such as a table of contents, page numbers, etc.

2. Proposed Integrated Master Schedule to determine:

i. Inclusion of significant milestones, design, development, testing, deployment, and installation related activities

ii. Provision of a comprehensive, implementable timeline that aligns with the approach in the technical proposal.

iii. Completion within 12 months (356 calendar days) after task order award

3. Work Plan: A narrative description with sufficient details to provide a complete understanding of the contractor’s management approach for rendering the necessary supplies and services to meet the Government’s desired outcomes. The work plan must (at a minimum) identify:

i. All labor categories/labor types/ labor hours, for Prime and Subcontractor (i.e. both essential/key personnel and non-essential/non-key personnel) the contractor intends to use for successful work performance.

ii. The total number proposed contractor staff/personnel per labor category/labor type.

iii. The methods the contractor will use to supplement resourcing if staff/personnel changes occur to ensure continuity of operations and successful work performance.

4. Organizational Structure: A summary description with applicable figures or charts demonstrating an acceptable organizational structure that logically provides adequate resource planning with qualified personnel to perform all the tasks, subtasks, etc. in this PWS. This description with applicable figures or charts must (at a minimum) also clearly identify the organizational structure and incorporation of essential/key personnel, Project Manager, as identified in the PWS.

5. Essential/Key Personnel: The resumes and applicable supporting documentation (including but not limited to certifications) for all contractor proposed essential/key personnel identified in the PWS to clearly demonstrate their capabilities and qualifications for Government determination of acceptability. The contractor will ensure all resumes and applicable supporting documentation does not contain any Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) including (but not limited to) Personally Identifiable Information (PII):

i. The resumes of Key Personnel must provide a clear demonstration that the proposed resources meet or exceed the education, qualification, and experience requirements described in the

PWS.

ii. The Government reserves the right to use any available information to evaluate Key Personnel, including (but not limited to) verification of proposed Key Personnel performance on other Government contracts. The Government may contact references identified in Key Personnel resumes, query databases for certification validity, and inquire with end user representatives regarding the quality of Key Personnel experience and performance. The Offeror must provide, along with resumes, Letters of Intent (LOI)/Letters of Commitment (LOC) confirming Key Personnel selection and availability immediately on contract award. The Offeror must ensure that all Key Personnel possess eligibility for applicable personnel security clearance investigations and can obtain a Common Access Card (CAC).

6. Risk/Issue Management: A narrative description with applicable figures or charts on how the contractor will identify, control, manage, and elevate to the Government risks or issues encountered during contract performance. This description must (at a minimum) also include:

i. Methods to address any known constraints to contractor performance identified in the PWS.

ii. Identification (including if/then statements with likelihood and consequences) of any critical risks known to the contractor at the time of proposal that could significantly impact successful contract performance.

7. Stakeholder Communications: A narrative description with applicable figures or charts of the methods the contractor will use for stakeholder identification, engagement, and communications.

This description should include information on how communications will be disseminated between the contractor and the Government such as communication matrixes, integrated project teams (IPTs), group mailbox(es), etc.

8. Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA): A narrative description with applicable figures or charts of the plans, processes, and methods the contractor will use to meet the performance standards identified in the PWS. Additionally, this description needs provide details on how the contractor will support Government oversight and implement QC/QA processes to successfully complete the tasks, subtasks, etc. to deliver the Government’s desired outcomes.

9. Additional Information: Any additional relevant information associated with the contractor’s management approach for the performance of the contract including (but not limited to) appendices, glossaries, definitions, enclosures, or attachments as applicable.

4.1.3. Factor 3: Past Performance

The Government will use information from several Government systems as part of the Past Performance Evaluation. This information will be obtained from but not limited to, the following Government systems: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) and Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR).

4.1.3.1 Performance Confidence Assessment

The Government will review and assign a Performance Confidence Assessment rating of acceptable or unacceptable. Each Offeror will be assigned one rating from table below.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method will be used to determine qualified Offeror.

Past Performance Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unacceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have the expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In arriving at a Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, the Government will assess delivery history and quality history obtained from the SPRS for the applicable category of product or service being procured utilizing the Federal Supply Class (FSC) and/or the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. The Government may also consider general trends of a vendor in the areas of on-time delivery and/or quality that may not be reflected in SPRS for the particular FSC/NAICS.

The Government will also assess ratings based on information obtained from past CPARS assessments from contract actions containing similar scope and or breadth of work.

The Government will also assess information obtained from past CBAR assessments from contract actions containing similar scope and magnitude of work.

The Government may also consider information from various other sources such as, contracting agency experience with the contractor, previous contract history available from DCMA, etc.

If negative information is assessed during any of the Past Performance evaluation tools, or the contracting agency's own experience impacts the evaluation, the affected offeror may be given the opportunity to discuss that information. Award(s) will be made to the company(s) whose proposal(s) are determined to be the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced proposal or the highest rated (lowest risk) offer.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

4.1.4. Factor 4: Price

A Price Proposal will be submitted in accordance with instructions set forth in this solicitation.

Evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal will be based on the information presented in the proposal and information available to the Contracting Office from sources deemed appropriate. Sources typically considered include Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), other contracts with the same firms for similar items or services, known commercial sources such as Global Insight Inc. (formally Data Resources, Inc.), Standard and Poor, other sources.

Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically high or low in terms of cost, may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity of risks of the proposed work and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. The quality of organization and attention to detail reflected in the business proposal will be considered to be an indication of the quality of organization and level of capability during contract performance.

4.1.4.1. Price Reasonableness

Proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness. If price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional pricing information will be requested by the Government in accordance with DFARS 215.403-5. Price evaluation will be based on the total cost offered for all CLINs. If necessary, an informal breakdown will be required at the CLIN level to include, but not limited to, material, labor, overhead, general and administrative expenses, miscellaneous subcontracting, travel/per diem, contract data and any miscellaneous cost items.