Attachment 2 HFAM Section M.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2 – Section M Solicitation SP4706-25-R-0006

Hydrant Fueling Automation Maintenance (HFAM) Support 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 cost. Tradeoffs will be made between technical and management approach and cost only among the Offerors who have been determined to be acceptable in all other Factors. However, cost is an important factor and shall be considered when preparing proposals. While the technical and management approach evaluation factors are more important than cost, the importance of cost 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, cost may become the determining factor for award.

The Government reserves the right to award to a lower cost Offeror when the offers 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, cost/technical and management capability, and tradeoffs will be made.

SP4706-25-R-0006, HFAM Support

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 contract performance to render the necessary supplies and services to sustain, maintain, modify, and support the HFAM program will depend on the 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 HFAM Support contract as described in the solicitation; specifically, the 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 contract 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:

a. Transition-In / Out: A description of the Offeror’s technical approach to rendering transition-in and transition-out services for the HFAM 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 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 HFAM 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 HFAM 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 and site support 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 HFAM 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 provide CM / repair supplies, render CM / repair services, and generate applicable CM / repair technical documentation.

e. Site Support: A description of the Offeror’s technical approach to rendering site support services for the HFAM program to fulfill the Government’s requirements as described in the PWS. The Offeror’s technical approach must include (but is not limited to) generic information describing their framework to provide HFAM solution complex CM / repairs or PLC upgrades / replacements upon issuance of a Government Task Order (TO).

f. Cybersecurity Support: A description of the Offeror’s technical approach to rendering cybersecurity support services for the HFAM program to fulfill the Government’s requirements as described in the PWS. The Offeror’s technical approach must include (but is not limited to) generic information describing their framework to provide cybersecurity resources and assistance upon issuance of a Government Task Order (TO).

g. Commercial Software Licensing: A description of the Offeror’s technical approach to obtaining commercial software licensing for the HFAM program to fulfill the Government’s requirements as described in the PWS. The Offeror’s technical approach must include (but is not limited to) generic information describing their framework to procure and render commercial software upon issuance of a Government Task Order (TO).

4.1.2. Factor 2: Management Approach

Successful execution of contract performance to render the necessary supplies and services to administer and sustain the HFAM program and HFAM solutions 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 HFAM Support contract as described in the solicitation; specifically, the 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 HFAM program. At a minimum, the Offeror’s combined PMP and QCP must include:

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

b. 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 account for all requirements, tasks, subtasks, etc. contained within the PWS. Additionally, the work plan must (at a minimum) also identify:

i. All labor categories/labor types (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. All subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, etc.

iv. Which tasks, subtasks, etc. described in the PWS will be performed by the prime contractor, subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, etc.

v. Which labor categories/labor types will be on-site vs. virtual/remote throughout contract performance.

vi. 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).

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

viii. The methods the contractor will use to maintain training and applicable certifications for staff/personnel.

c. 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:

i. The logical hierarchy (including roles/responsibilities) proposed by the contractor to conduct oversight of their personnel in alignment to the PWS tasks, subtasks, etc. for all proposed labor categories/labor types (i.e. both essential/key personnel and non-essential/non-key personnel).

ii. Clear identification of the organizational structure and incorporation of essential/key personnel identified in the PWS.

iii. Identification of all labor categories/labor types by prime contractor, subcontractor, vendor, or supplier.

d. 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).

e. 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.

iii. The methods the contractor will use to control cost, prevent scope creep during contract performance, and minimize requests for equitable adjustment (REAs).

f. 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.

g. 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 including (but not limited to):

i. Any contractor key framing assumptions associated with contract performance.

ii. The contractor’s methods of compliance with the Government QASP such as performance monitoring, Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs), etc.

1. This information must include specific details on how the contractor will adhere to the performance standards, Key Performance Indicators (KPI), Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), etc.

iii. The contractor’s approach to QC/QA that will identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective supplies or services including (but not limited to):

1. Methods, tools, and techniques for QC/QA activities such as 100% inspection, random/periodic sampling, peer reviews, independent verification and validation (IV&V), auditing, management/second level reviews, etc.

2. Methods for addressing non-conformity of supplies or services identified by the Government.

h. 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

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, https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA000740-22-DPC.pdf https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-15#FAR_15_305__d923e32 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 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 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.

4.1.4. 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.