Attachment 3_Instructions and Evaluation Factors_082224.pdf

Instructions and Evaluation Criteria

The Government anticipates awarding an Indefinite Delivery Vehicle (IDV) contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible vendor whose quote provides the best value to the government in accordance with FAR Part 12 and 13 procedures. To make the award decision, the government will consider four evaluation factors: (1) Technical Approach, (2) Management Approach, (3) Past Performance, and (4) Price.

1. Evaluation Factors

a. Factor Identification: This evaluation will evaluate the quotes received in response to the Request for Quote using the following factors:

Volume 1

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Factor 2 – Management Approach

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Volume 2

Factor 4 - Price

Order of Importance – the Factors listed above are in the order of importance to the Government.

A successful quoter must provide a detailed and relevant technical and management approach that is supplemented by applicable corporate experience and highly relevant Past Performance examples. When combined, Factors 1, 2, and 3 (all non-price factors) are significantly more important than price, Factor 4. The USCG may award the resultant IDV to other than the lowest-price quote.

VOLUME 1: TECHICAL QUOTE

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Submission Requirements:

The Vendor’s quote will be evaluated for its ability to demonstrate, in detail, the Vendor’s technical approach and overall ability to perform maintenance support and sustainment of the USCG automated fuel inventory management (AFIM) system requirements as delineated within the PWS. The Vendor’s Technical Approach will be evaluated for overall, evidence-based, ability to perform the requirements as set forth in the RFQ. The evaluation of the Technical Approach will assess the Quoter’s understanding of the requirements and an ability to meet or exceed all the functional requirements, terms, and conditions identified in the RFQ. The

Vendor’s response to the technical requirements of the PWS shall be used to assess the Vendor's understanding of tasks to be performed, as well as the methodology for accomplishing tasks under any resultant award. The Vendor’s quotation should address the requirements in sufficient detail to allow an understanding of the manner and method of compliance during contract performance and should detail the effectiveness of the Vendor’s overall technical capabilities.

The Vendor shall provide a technical approach that addresses requirements defined in the solicitation and:

Successfully fulfills the Government’s requirements Demonstrates an understanding of automated fuel meter registers and Automatic Tank

Gauges (ATGs) installed in a local fuel monitoring configuration that monitors, manages and reports fuel transactions and custody transfers

The Vendor’s proposed approach shall address all requirements and challenges and shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the AFIM maintenance support and sustainment requirements as described in the solicitation. The evaluation of the technical approach will ensure that the quote identifies how risks to schedule and/or performance will be mitigated.

The Vendor shall provide an approach to address the following requirements:

Corrective maintenance virtual and on-site Operational Support: Procedures for handling technical support and troubleshoot calls virtually and on-site

Corrective maintenance support, and urgent and/or emergency conditions as to include how the completed work will be tracked in to ensure fuel inventory accountability, minimization of system down time or errors which may cause logistics interruptions, loss of visibility of fuel inventory and accountability of on-hand inventory.

Table 1: Factor 1 – Technical Requirement Rating Rating Standard Exceeding The vendor’s quote exceeds the solicitation requirements.

Acceptable The vendor’s quote clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable The vendor’s quote does not clearly meet the minimum requirement of the solicitation. The vendor is ineligible for award.

Factor 2 – Management Approach

Submission Requirements

The Vendor’s Management Approach will be evaluated for its overall, evidence-based, ability to manage the requirements as set forth in the PWS. The Management Approach will be evaluated for the degree to which the Vendor’s Management Approach demonstrates an ability to organize, plan, report, prioritize, schedule work and exercise project controls with its program management capabilities through their Project Management Plan. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the Vendor’s approach to staffing (including Key Personnel) that will lead to the successful accomplishment of the requirements and their Quality Management capabilities as follows:

• The Vendor will be evaluated as to the degree to which their approach to staffing will lead to the successful accomplishment of the requirement.

• The Vendor will be evaluated to the degree to which their proposed staffing mix will be able to meet the technical requirements.

• The Vendor’s Key Personnel will be evaluated for their qualifications as they relate to the required qualifications as set forth in the PWS.

• The Vendor’s Quality Management will be evaluated to the degree to which it demonstrates how the Offeror will meet and comply with the quality standards established in this PWS, including the plans and procedures the Vendor will use to maintain quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, and any other requirements set forth in this RFQ.

• The Vendor’s quality control approach will be evaluated to the degree to which the Vendor’s approach to quality control identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which, are likely to result in successful outcome within cost and on schedule.

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Submission Requirements:

a) The vendor’s past performance will be evaluated as “acceptable”,” unacceptable” or “neutral”.

The past performance evaluation will assess the vendor’s probability of meeting the minimum solicitation requirements. Vendors shall submit at least two and no more than three recent and relevant past performance projects/ references with their quote and will be assigned one of the mentioned ratings. The assessment will be based on the vendor’s record of relevant and recent past performance information. In addition to past performance, the Government may also consider information obtained through other sources such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), other databases; and interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers.

b) Relevant performance includes efforts of the same or similar in size and scope to this solicitation. The vendor should include specific examples, of relevance, if appropriate. These include efforts where the vendor provided similar supplies/services to those outlined in the PWS.

Recent efforts are defined as those efforts, which have been performed during any portion of the last five years, including those efforts currently being performed.

c) The Government will consider the collective record of all recent and relevant past performance in assessing a rating. In the case of the vendor without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance can be reasonably assigned, the vendor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance therefore, the vendor shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

Table 2: Factor 3 – Past Performance Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the vendor’s recent and relevant performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the vendor will successfully perform the required effort.

Unacceptable Based on the vendor’s recent and relevant performance record, the government has no reasonable expectation that the vendor will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown/Neutral No recent and relevant performance record is available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned.

Volume 2

Factor 4 – Price

Submission Requirements:

For the purposes of quoting, the Government is providing Attachment 2 – Labor Price Input, for the Quoter to input proposed labor rates required for each CLIN. Attachment 2– CLIN Price Input includes the CLINs to be ordered throughout the IDV via task orders. The Government anticipates ordering 1 unit each year, with a maximum of number of hours units for the life of the IDV. Contractor travel may be required to support this requirement. All travel required by the Government outside the local commuting area(s) will be in accordance with

FAR 31.205-46.

Each Quoter shall submit a price quote (Volume 2) separate from the technical quote (Volume 1).

The price quote shall include the following:

a) Completed Labor Price Input (Attachment 2) in an Excel Spreadsheet. Quoter's shall input the proposed labor categories, hours, and totals required to provide the services for each CLIN for the base and 4 option years.

Note: Attachment 2 has tabs that require input. Quoter's shall input other direct costs and provide a description of those costs. Quoter's shall input their contract access fee, and annual totals.

Tabs in Attachment 2 template may be modified if required.

b) Completed CLIN Price Input (Attachment 2) in an Excel Spreadsheet. Cells highlighted yellow are required to be filled in by the Quoter. Fixed prices shall be fully burdened and include all costs (direct and indirect), overhead, and profit.

c) Quoter's must submit price quotes in the format in Attachment 2. The USCG requires that all quotes include, at a minimum, all line items as stated.

Vendor’s total quoted price will be evaluated for fair and reasonable pricing in accordance with

FAR 13.106-3.