Attachment 2 ATG GLOBAL MX TO - Section M - 2-19-2026.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2 – Section M

Solicitation # SP4706-26-R-0001 – Energy Automation Operational Technology Sustainment (EAOTS) Automatic Tank Gauging (ATG), Independent Alarm Systems (IAS), and Overfill Protection Equipment

(OPE) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Basic Solicitation # SP4706-26-R-0002 – EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global Maintenance (MX) Task Order (TO)

Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Basis for Award

The Government intends to award an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract and issue the first Task Order (TO) for Energy Automation Operational Technology Sustainment (EAOTS) of Automatic Tank Gauging (ATG), Independent Alarm Systems (IAS), and Overfill Protection Equipment (OPE) Global Maintenance (MX) from the identified solicitations. The IDIQ contract and first TO will be awarded to one (1) 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 price.

OFFERS WHOSE PROPSOALS DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS STATED

HEREIN MAY BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND REJECTED WITHOUT

FURTHER EVALUATION. IF THAT OCCURS, THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT BE

CONSIDERED FOR IDIQ AND TASK ORDER AWARD.

AN OFFEROR MUST PROPOSE ON BOTH THE EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE IDIQ AND GLOBAL

MX TO SOLICITATIONS, BUT THE IDIQ SOLICITATION WILL BE EVLAUATED FIRST,

THEN THE GLOBAL MX TO WILL BE EVALUATED BASED ON THE PROPOSALS

DEEMED ACCEPTABLE FOR THE IDIQ SOLICITATION.

1.1. Evaluation Method

The evaluation method and source selection process will be conducted in two parts.

a. Part 1: EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE IDIQ Basic Award: The Government will first evaluate proposals for the IDIQ Basic contract. To be eligible for the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE IDIQ contract award, an Offeror must receive a rating of "Acceptable" for Factor 1A, Management Approach, and a rating of "Substantial Confidence," "Satisfactory Confidence," or "Neutral Confidence" for Factor 2A, Past Performance.

b. Part 2: EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO Award: For all Offerors found to be technically acceptable at the IDIQ level, the Government will conduct a best-value tradeoff evaluation of their TO proposals. This tradeoff process permits tradeoffs among price and non-price factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of a higher priced proposal must merit the additional price. However, between proposals evaluated as essentially technically equal, price may become the major consideration in selecting the best value. Factor 1B is the most important factor. Factor 2B and Factor 3B are of equal importance to each other and, when

SP4706-26-R-0001, EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE IDIQ Basic SP4706-26-R-0002, EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO combined, are less important than Factor 1B. All non-price factors (1B, 2B, and 3B), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4B, Price.

The EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE IDIQ contract and Global MX TO 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 price or receiving the highest technical rating. The Government will evaluate the submissions based on the material presented in the written proposals. An offer must be acceptable based upon Government evaluation of all factors identified in the solicitation for any Offeror to be eligible for award. Technical acceptability is defined by meeting or exceeding the standards outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). All proposals must demonstrate to the Government's satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a management and technical approach that will ensure the successful accomplishment of the Government’s acquisition objectives as described in the PWS’. All Government evaluations will include a price analysis to determine if proposals merit award.

In the event of a single responsive proposal, the Government will conduct an evaluation of technical acceptability of the proposal for the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE IDIQ level and then the Global MX TO level.

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

The Government will evaluate proposals using the factors for evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal:

• Part 1: EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE IDIQ Basic o Factor 1A: Management Approach o Factor 2A: Past Performance

• Part 2: EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO o Factor 1B: Technical Approach Subfactor 1B1: Global MX Technical Approach Subfactor 1B2: Quality Control Plan (QCP) Subfactor 1B3: Staffing Plan & Key Personnel o Factor 2B: Past Performance o Factor 3B: Small Business Participation o Factor 4B: Price

3.0 Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate proposals using the factors listed below in Section 4.0 Description of Evaluation Factors.

• For Part 1: EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Basic IDIQ, non-price factors 1A and 2A are of equal importance.

• For Part 2: EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO, factor 1B is the most important factor. Factor 2B and Factor 3B are of equal importance to each other and, when combined, are less important than Factor 1B. All non-price factors (1B, 2B, and 3B), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4B, 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

Evaluation factors 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 1A: Management Approach, 2A: Past Performance, 1B: Technical Approach, 2B: Past Performance, 3B: Small Business Participation, and 4B: Price. 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. Part 1: EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE IDIQ Basic

Proposals will first be evaluated to determine their eligibility for an IDIQ award for the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE program. To be considered awardable, a proposal must receive a rating of "Acceptable" for Factor 1A and a confidence rating of "Substantial Confidence," "Satisfactory Confidence," or "Neutral Confidence" for Factor 2A.

4.1.1. Factor 1A: Management Approach

This factor will be evaluated on an “Acceptable / Unacceptable” basis via the following criteria:

Factor 1A: Management Approach Proposal Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Table 1 – Factor 1A: Management Approach Proposal Ratings Chart

This factor evaluates the soundness of the Offeror’s corporate administrative competency to obtain, organize, orchestrate, and oversee the necessary resources to successfully complete work under the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE IDIQ contract. The Government will review and assess the Offeror’s Program Management Plan (PMP) to determine the Offeror possesses a concise, logical, rational, and systematic method for ensuring compliance with the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Basic IDIQ PWS. The PMP must be logically structured (e.g. contain a table of contents, page numbers, sections / subsections, references, etc.) and at a minimum contain:

a. Corporate Organizational Structure : A summary description with applicable figures or charts demonstrating a corporate organizational structure that logically provides for adequate resource planning and oversight for a contract of this size and scope.

b. Task Order Management Approach: A narrative description of the methods the contractor will use for managing multiple and concurrent task orders, including the processes for resource allocation, deconfliction, and ensuring continuity of operations if staff/personnel changes occur.

c. Subcontractor and Vendor Management: A description of the methods for managing subcontractors, vendors, and suppliers, including how the prime contractor will ensure flow-down of Government requirements.

d. Corporate 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 throughout contract execution. This must include methods to control cost, prevent scope creep, and minimize requests for equitable adjustment (REAs). This section should not identify any specific risks or issues. Instead, it must describe the corporate system and methodology to address and escalate risks or issues to ensure successful work performance.

e. Corporate Stakeholder Communications: A narrative description of the methods the contractor will use for enterprise-level stakeholder identification, engagement, and communications with the Government Program Management Office (PMO).

f. Corporate Quality Management Framework: A narrative description of the overarching corporate quality management policy and framework. This section should not be a detailed Quality Control Plan (QCP). Instead, it must describe the corporate system and methodology for ensuring that a compliant and effective, task-order-specific QCP is developed, implemented, and monitored for every TO issued under the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE IDIQ contract. It must describe the corporate management structure that provides quality oversight for all projects.

4.1.2. Factor 2A: Past Performance

Compliant with DFARS PGI 215.3, paragraph 3.1.3., the Government will perform a past performance evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed on prior contracts by such indicators as the organization’s history of successfully completing projects, history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables, commitment to customer satisfaction, and history of staying on schedule and within budget.

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered. These will be combined to establish a performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. There are three aspects contributing to the performance confidence assessment rating for the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information):

a. Recency: The Government will first evaluate the Offeror’s past performance references to determine their recency. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA000740-22-DPC.pdf https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-15#FAR_15_305__d923e32 information. Upon evaluating the Offeror’s past performance reference, the Government will assign one of the following four recency ratings (Very Recent, Recent, Somewhat Recent, Not Recent):

Past Performance Recency Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Very Recent Presently performing work.

Recent Past performance within the past 3 years of this solicitation.

Somewhat Recent Past performance within the past 3 to 9 years of this solicitation.

Not Recent Past performance within the past 10 years or greater of this solicitation.

Table 2 – Past Performance Recency Ratings

b. Relevance: After evaluating the recency aspect, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance references to determine their relevance to this acquisition. The relevancy assessment will consider the Offeror’s past performance information based on similarity to the dollar value, scope and magnitude of effort, and complexities to the solicitation. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Upon completion of evaluating the Offeror’s past performance references, the Government will assign one of the four relevancy ratings (Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant and Not Relevant) described as follows:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 3 –Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Chart

c. Quality: After evaluating the recency and relevancy aspects, the Government will establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The quality aspect of the Government’s performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed on prior contracts by such indicators as the organization’s history of successful completion of projects; history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables; commitment to customer satisfaction; and history of staying on schedule and within budget. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Upon completion of evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information the Government will assign one of the five quality ratings (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable) described as follows:

Past Performance Quality Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding

Response demonstrates historical projects with outstanding experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, and staying on schedule and within budget. An outstanding overall past performance based on past performance information.

Good

Response demonstrates historical projects with good experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, and staying on schedule and within budget. A good overall past performance based on past performance information.

Acceptable

Response demonstrates historical projects with satisfactory experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, and staying on schedule and within budget. An acceptable overall past performance based on past performance information.

Marginal

Response demonstrates poor overall experience performing historical projects and does not exhibit experience and history of either producing high quality reports, deliverables, or staying on schedule and within budget. Marginal overall performance based on past performance information.

Unacceptable

Response demonstrates an unsatisfactory overall experience performing historical projects and does not exhibit experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, or staying on schedule and within budget. An unacceptable overall past performance based on past performance information.

Table 4 – Past Performance Quality Rating Method Chart

The past performance evaluation of these aspects will primarily be based on information provided in Past Performance Questionnaires provided with the Offeror’s proposal. The Offeror will list at least 3 and up to 5 contracts/task orders in progress or completed within the past five (5) years for work similar in size, scope, and complexity, specifically list work similar to the requirements outlined in the PWS;

provided to either Government agencies or the private sector. The Offeror will include the name, address, point of contact, current telephone number, e-mail address, dollar value, period of performance and a brief description of work. The Offeror will discuss the similarities and differences between the proposed effort and contract being referenced. The proposal will, at a minimum, include a narrative that describes the following for each contract cited:

• Scale of prior work performed, and complexity of work are relevant to the requirements of the PWS. Specify contracts for Government or private sector.

• Describe any significant problems or issues that occurred during performance of the contract and how issues were resolved.

• The Offeror will ensure that information presented for contact points is accurate and current (i.e., current phone number, titles, etc.) The Government may or may not attempt to track down reference data in cases where inaccurate data is presented. Any past performance information presented by the Offeror that cannot be verified will not be evaluated.

The Government may independently contact the Offeror’s prior customers or verify past performance through databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). If the Government’s information conflicts with assertions made in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be asked to clarify the information. However, in arriving at a past performance confidence assessment rating, the Government will assess delivery and quality history obtained from the SPRS for the applicable category of the product(s) or service(s) 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 an Offeror in the areas of on-time delivery and/or quality that may not be reflected in the SPRS for a particular FSC/NAICS. The Government may also assess ratings based on information obtained from past Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) assessments from contract actions containing similar scope and / or breadth of work. The Government may also assess information obtained from past Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) assessments from contract actions containing similar scopes and magnitude of work. The Government may also consider information from various other sources such as contracting agency experience with the contractor, contract history available from Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), etc.

If negative information is assessed using 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.

After completing evaluation of the past performance aspects, the Government will assign one of the five confidence ratings (Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, Neutral Confidence, and No Confidence) described as follows:

Past Performance Confidence Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. An unacceptable overall past performance based on past performance information.

Neutral Confidence

No 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.

No Confidence Based 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.

Table 5 – Past Performance Confidence Ratings Chart

Note: In the case which an Offeror is without a past performance record, a past performance record is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. Therefore, the Offeror will be determined to have a neutral past performance.

4.2. Part 2: EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO

After evaluation and an Offeror’s award eligibility is determined for the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Basic IDIQ, the Government will proceed with EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO evaluation. The EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO evaluation and award will be based on a best-value tradeoff among the factors listed herein. Factor 1B is the most important factor. Factor 2B and Factor 3B are of equal importance to each other and, when combined, are less important than Factor 1B. All non-price factors (1B, 2B, and 3B), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4B, Price.

4.2.1. Factor 1B: Technical Approach

The Government will utilize the following rating chart for evaluations of proposals received to support acceptability and risk determinations for Factor 1B: Technical Approach.

Factor 1B: Technical 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 6 – Factor 1B: Technical Approach Proposal Ratings Chart

The Government will conduct a rigorous review, analysis, and assessment of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach. Factor 1B: Technical Approach will evaluate the soundness of the Offeror’s technical competency to meet the requirements as described in the solicitation; specifically, the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO PWS and its enclosures, appendices, attachments, and technical exhibits.

As part of this evaluation, the Government will verify that the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the Government’s procurement objectives. The Government’s evaluation will determine how well the proposal describes the Offeror’s technical approach, Quality Control Plan (QCP) and Staffing Plan to complete the work at an acceptable level of risk utilizing the following subfactors:

4.2.1.1. Subfactor 1B1: ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX Technical Approach

The Offeror must provide a narrative Work Plan with sufficient detail to provide a complete understanding of the contractor’s technical approach for rendering the necessary supplies and services to meet the Government’s desired outcomes for the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO. The work plan must account for all requirements, tasks, and subtasks contained within the TO PWS including:

a. Transition-In / Out: A description of the Offeror’s technical approach to rendering transition-in and transition-out services for the ATG/IAS/OPE MX to fulfill the Government’s requirements as described in the PWS. The Offeror’s technical approach must include (but is not limited to) information describing their framework to perform knowledge transfer (tacit and explicit), coordinating with the Government and third-party contractors, accepting or relinquishing responsibilities for key personnel, reassignment of SNOW cases, and shifting contractual obligations for work performance.

b. Preventative Maintenance (PM): A description of the Offeror’s technical approach to rendering PM supplies and services for the ATG/IAS/OPE program to fulfill the Government’s requirements as described in the PWS. The Offeror’s technical approach must include (but is not limited to) information describing their framework to perform PM planning and coordination, render PM services, and generate applicable PM technical documentation.

c. Technical Support: A description of the Offeror’s technical approach to rendering technical support for the ATG/IAS/OPE program to fulfill the Government’s requirements as described in the PWS.

The Offeror’s technical approach must include (but is not limited to) information describing their framework to perform technical support team services, render technical support team CM/repair planning and coordination, and generate applicable technical support team documentation.

d. Corrective Maintenance (CM) / Repair: A description of the Offeror’s technical approach to rendering CM / repair supplies and services for the ATG/IAS/OPE program to fulfill the Government’s requirements as described in the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO PWS. The Offeror’s technical approach must include (but is not limited to) information describing their framework to provide CM / repair supplies, render CM / repair services, and generate applicable CM / repair technical documentation.

e. Key Framing Assumptions: Any contractor key framing assumptions associated with their proposed technical approach and performance of the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX services.

f. Critical Risk Identification: 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 for the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO.

4.2.1.2. Subfactor 1B2: Quality Control Plan (QCP)

The Offeror must submit a QCP specific to the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO that provides a detailed 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 TO PWS. This description must provide details on how the contractor will support Government oversight and implement QC processes to deliver the Government’s desired outcomes, including (but not limited to):

a. Inspection System: The contractor’s approach to QC that will identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective supplies or services, including methods, tools, and techniques for QC/QA activities such as 100% inspection, random/periodic sampling, peer reviews, and independent verification and validation (IV&V).

b. Performance Monitoring and Adherence: The contractor’s methods of compliance with the Government Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). This information must include specific details on how the contractor will adhere to and monitor performance against the performance standards, Key Performance Indicators (KPI), and Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) defined in the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO PWS.

c. Non-Conformity: The contractor's methods for addressing non-conformity of supplies or services identified by the Government.

4.2.1.3. Subfactor 1B3: Staffing Plan & Key Personnel

The Offeror must detail their staffing approach for the ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO. This section must include:

a. Organizational Structure: A summary description with applicable figures or charts demonstrating the proposed organizational structure to complete the tasks and requirements in the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO PWS. This includes identifying the logical hierarchy (including roles/responsibilities) and clear identification of the organizational placement for all Key Personnel.

b. Staff Changes and Training: The methods the Offeror will use to supplement resourcing if staff/personnel changes occur to ensure continuity of operations and successful work performance.

This also will include description of how the Offeror will maintain training and applicable certifications for staff/personnel based upon the requirements described in the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO PWS.

c. TO Level Labor Identification: Identification of all labor categories/types (i.e. both key and non-key personnel) and subcontractors, vendors, or suppliers intended for use to perform the tasks described in the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO PWS. The Offeror must specify which tasks from the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO PWS will be performed by the prime contractor versus other entities.

d. TO Level Essential / Key Personnel: The resumes and applicable supporting documentation

(including certifications) for all proposed Key Personnel identified in the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO PWS. The Offeror must 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. For each essential/key personnel labor category or position, identification of which individual(s) are anticipated to be a full-time, part-time, matrixed, or a split resource (i.e. not a full-time equivalent (FTE)/dedicated to the performance of work described in the PWS).

ii. 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 EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO PWS.

1. The Offeror must ensure that all Key Personnel possess eligibility for applicable personnel security clearance investigations and can obtain a Common Access Card (CAC).

iii. The Offeror must provide, along with resumes, Letters of Intent (LOI)/Letters of Commitment (LOC) confirming Key Personnel selection and availability immediately upon task order award.

1. 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 or availability from assignment 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.

4.2.2. Factor 2B: Past Performance

There is no separate submission requirement for this factor. The past performance information submitted and evaluated for the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE IDIQ Basic proposal (Factor 2A) will be used for the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO evaluation.

4.2.3. Factor 3B: Small Business Participation

All Offerors will be evaluated on the level of Small Business commitment that they demonstrate in their proposal for the EAOTS ATG/IAS/OPE Global MX TO. Proposals will be evaluated based on their proposed approach to meet the target % in the table below which represents DLA’s Small Business goals for FY26. The below goals are based on a percentage of subcontracted dollars, not total contract value:

Small Business Participation Overall Goal 5%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5% Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5%

Service-Connected Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 5% HubZone 5%

Table 7 – DLA Small Business Participation Goals

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Table 8 – Small Business Rating Method

4.2.4. Factor 4B: 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.

4.2.4.1. 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 price 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.