2025.03.19 Atlantic Barge Pre-Proposal Conference Slides.pdf

TOGETHER, WE DELIVER.

Scheduled Fuel Barge Transportation Service in Atlantic Region Pre-Proposal Conference

Ms. Stephanie Eckert 19 March 2025

CUI

• Introductions

• Q & A Process

• Solicitation Terms

• Solicitation Amendment

• Requirement Overview

• Contract Type

• RFP Attachments

• Proposal Submission

• Evaluation of Proposals

• Milestones

AGENDA

• USTRANSCOM Team

– Shanda Lyman, Contracting Officer

– Stephanie Eckert, Contract Specialist

– Megan Strieker, Contract Specialist

• DLA-E Team

– Brian Schule, Functional Service Manager

– Mike Alessandro, Contracting Officer Representative

INTRODUCTIONS

• The Pre-Proposal Conference is not an acceptable forum for submitting questions or reviewing answers previously posted.

• Questions regarding this requirement must be submitted via email in accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Paragraph I, Formal Communications, of the RFP.

– Stephanie Eckert, stephanie.a.eckert.civ@mail.mil

– Megan Strieker, megan.m.strieker.civ@mail.mil

– Shanda Lyman, shanda.l.lyman.civ@mail.mil

• Answers to all questions will be posted to SAM.gov; All questions submitted in a timely manner will be answered using this process.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PROCESS

CUI

CUI

mailto:stephanie.a.eckert.civ@mail.mil mailto:megan.m.strieker.civ@mail.mil mailto:shanda.l.lyman.civ@mail.mil

• Solicitation and Amendments (if needed) are posted to SAM.gov:

– https://sam.gov/opp/0c5612e2001043f4a556530b03fdfc4d/view

• Remarks and explanations at the conference will not qualify the terms of the solicitation.

• Solicitation terms and specifications will not change unless the solicitation is amended in writing.

• In the event of discrepancies between slides and solicitation, the solicitation terms prevail.

SOLICITATION TERMS

CUI

https://sam.gov/opp/0c5612e2001043f4a556530b03fdfc4d/view

• Solicitation Amendment 1 – Released 12 March 2025

– Issued to comply with:

• Class Deviation 2025-O0003—Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity in Federal Contracts – Complies with Executive Order (EO) 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity

• Class Deviation 2025-O0004—Revocation of Executive Order on Sustainability – Complies with Executive Order (EO) E.O 14148, Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions

– RFP FAR Clauses/Provisions were updated to align with these Class Deviations.

SOLICITATION AMENDMENT

• Solicitation Amendment 2 – Released 13 March 2025

– Issued to update Attachment 7, Atlantic Barge Pricing Matrix, est qty of CLINs 3005, 3006, and 3007 from "12" to "2“.

– The document name was updated to Attachment 7, Atlantic Barge Pricing Matrix v.2.

SOLICITATION AMENDMENT

• DLA Energy-Americas East (DLA E-AME) has a requirement for scheduled transportation of DoD owned bulk jet fuel (JP5), marine diesel (F76), and commercial (Jet-A) by tug and barge

• Performance is between all ordered United States ports and points on the Atlantic and Gulf Coast and their connecting waterways, inland waterways, coastal waterways, rivers, and tributaries, including those specified on the next slide

– This does not represent all Loading/Discharging points and may change as fuel procurement award patterns change

REQUIREMENT OVERVIEW

FUEL LOADING/DISCHARGING POINTS

REQUIREMENT OVERVIEW

CUI

* Loading/Discharging points may be added or deleted as fuel procurement award patterns change.

• The Contractor shall furnish all supplies, materials, equipment, and personnel necessary to perform the services incidental to the operation of the equipment listed below:

– Six (6) tank barges with the following capacities:

• Two (2) tank barge having a total capacity of not less than 10,000 barrels (and not more than 20,000 barrels) with inland waterway capability

• Three (3) tank barges, each having a total calibrated capacity of not less than 20,000 barrels (and not more than 30,000 barrels) with inland waterway capability

• One (1) tank barge having a total calibrated capacity of 50,000 barrels (and not more than 60,000 barrels) with ocean going capability.

– Six (6) tugs with the following capabilities:

• Two (2) for the 10-20 Mbbl barge

• Three (3) for the 20-30 Mbbl barges

• One (1) for the 50-60 Mbbl barge

– On-Call Tow services will be ordered separately as a modification to the contract and priced within the Schedule of Supplies and Services

REQUIREMENT OVERVIEW

• Single-Award FFP contract with T&M CLINs for reimbursable out-of-pocket expenses

• Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPT) Source Selection

• DLA Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs) will monitor/evaluate contract performance

• Contractor performance will be evaluated in accordance with the Service Delivery Summary (SDS)

– Uninterrupted Service

– Timely Daily Position Reports

– Preventing Cargo Contamination

– Provide Timely Cyber-Incident Reporting

• Quality Control Plan (QCP) will be submitted by offerors as part of their technical proposals

• Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

• Preaward/Postaward Peer Reviews and Independent Management Reviews (IMRs)

CONTRACT TYPE

• Attachments

– Attachment 1: Performance Work Statement (PWS)

– Attachment 2: Business Proposal Worksheet

– Attachment 3: U.S. Domestic Shipyard Report

– Attachment 4: Technical Capability Worksheet

– Attachment 5: Past-Present Performance Worksheet

– Attachment 6: Past-Present Performance Questionnaire

– Attachment 7: Atlantic Barge Pricing Matrix

– Attachment 8: Small Business Utilization Worksheet

– Attachment 9: Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template

– Attachment 10: Wage Determination

RFP ATTACHMENTS

• Proposals shall consist of six separate volumes:

– Volume I – Business Proposal

– Volume II – Technical Proposal

– Volume III – Past/Present Performance Proposal

– Volume IV – Price Proposal

– Volume V – Small Business Utilization Proposal

– Volume VI – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Only Applies to Large Businesses)

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

CUI

• Signed/dated proposals due on or before 4:00PM Central Time, 4 April 2025

• Submitted in six electronic documents, titled by volume, in a single email with the subject, “RFP

HTC71125RW001” to:

– Stephanie Eckert at stephanie.a.eckert.civ@mail.mil

– Megan Strieker at megan.m.strieker.civ@mail.mil

– Shanda Lyman at shanda.l.lyman.civ@mail.mil

• If email exceeds 10MB, volumes may be sent in separate emails, clearly indicating how many emails the Gov’t can expect to receive. The Government will provide an email confirmation when received.

• Offerors that do not receive an email confirmation shall contact via telephone Shanda Lyman at 618-817-9484, Stephanie Eckert at 618-817-9487 or Megan Strieker at 618-817-9458

• Hard copy proposals will not be accepted mailto:stephanie.a.eckert.civ@mail.mil mailto:megan.m.strieker.civ@mail.mil mailto:shanda.l.lyman.civ@mail.mil

• Volume I: Business Proposal

– Offerors are required to complete and submit Attachment 2, Business Proposal Worksheet

– Offerors shall select the appropriate response in each drop down and provide written responses in the blocks provided, supporting attachments/documentation, and applicable provision fill-ins/certifications as required

– Narrative responses are limited to the text fields provided

– The text fields may not be altered, and no additional page submissions will be accepted

– This includes all documents requiring signature or completion by the Offeror, such as the Standard Form (SF) 1449 and any solicitation amendments. An authorized official shall complete and sign the SF 1449, solicitation amendments (if applicable), and all certifications and representations requiring original signature.

– By submitting a Business Proposal, the Offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP, with attachments

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION – VOLUME I

• Volume II: Technical Proposal

– Offerors are required to complete and submit Attachment 4, Technical Capability Worksheet

– Offerors shall provide written narrative responses in the blocks provided explaining how the Offeror will meet each requirement, submit supporting documentation as required, and also complete the Contractor Confirmation Checklist for evaluation of technical capability

– Narrative responses are limited to the text fields provided

– The text fields may not be altered; and no additional page submissions will be accepted

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION – VOLUME II

• Volume III: Past/Present Performance Proposal

– Offerors are required to complete and submit Attachment 5, Past/Present Performance Worksheet.

– The Past/Present Performance Questionnaire, Attachment 6, shall be completed in parts by both the Offeror and

Past/Present Performance Reference POCs listed in the Attachment 5.

– The Reference POCs shall submit completed questionnaires via email to Stephanie Eckert, Sarah Albers, and Shanda

Lyman no later than the solicitation due date/time; the Government will not accept questionnaires submitted by Offerors.

– If you are aware one or more of your contracts is in CPARS and specifically relates to the requirements in this acquisition, you may include a copy of that report via email no later than the solicitation due date/time.

– Past/present performance information may also be obtained by the Government through the Electronic Subcontract

Reporting System (eSRS), interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, or any other source available to the Government.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION – VOLUME III

• Volume IV: Price Proposal

– The price proposal shall contain a completed copy of Attachment 7, Atlantic Barge Pricing Matrix v.2.

– Offeror shall complete the Pricing Matrix and propose the monthly rates per Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) for the base and each option year.

– Rates for the 6-month extension of services will auto-populate based on the rates provided in Option Year 4.

– Offeror shall also include a fixed rate per occurrence for optional on-call additional tankerman expenses in the Pricing

Matrix.

– All prices submitted shall be entered to the nearest whole dollar.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION – VOLUME IV

• Volume V: Small Business Utilization Proposal

– All Offerors, including small businesses, shall submit a detailed Attachment 8, Small Business Utilization Worksheet.

– Offerors shall provide a detailed document explaining the Offeror’s approach, in paragraph format, using the text fields provided within the worksheet.

– For Large Business Offerors, the Small Business Utilization Worksheet is separate from and in addition to the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION – VOLUME V

• Volume VI: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

– Applies to large businesses only.

– Offerors who certify as a large business concern shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan at time of proposal submission.

– The contents of the Offeror's proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be compliant to the requirements stated in

FAR 19.704, FAR Clause 52.219-9, DFARS 219.7, and DFARS Clause 252.219-7003.

– Attachment 9 of the solicitation may be used as a template for developing a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

– Offerors may submit a Commercial Subcontracting Plan instead of an ISP, but it also shall comply with FAR Clause 52.219-

9(d)(1) through (15).

– Failure to submit and negotiate the subcontracting plan to be compliant shall make the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION – VOLUME VI

• Award Decision:

– The Government intends to award a requirements contract to one responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is the best value to the Gov’t, price and other factors considered.

– The Government will utilize a Best Value, Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection.

• This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that superior past/present performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference.

• The Government will not pay a price premium disproportionate to the benefits associated with the proposed margin of service superiority.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

• Evaluation Factors

– Factor 1: Business Proposal

• Subfactor A: Proposal Compliance

• Subfactor B: Use of U.S. Shipyards

– Factor 2: Technical Capability

• Subfactor A: Equipment

• Subfactor B: Management of Operations

• Subfactor C: Contractor Confirmation Checklist

– Factor 3: Past/Present Performance

– Factor 4: Price

– Factor 5: Small Business Utilization

– An Offeror’s past/present performance will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price.

– Business Proposal and Technical Capability Proposal subfactors are rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis; price will be evaluated but will not be rated

– Small Business Utilization Proposals will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

• Factor 1: Business Proposal

– Proposals with “Unacceptable” business proposal rating(s) at the subfactor level will not be considered for award

• Subfactor A: Proposal Compliance (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

• Subfactor B: Use of U.S. Shipyards (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

– USTRANSCOM will evaluate the business proposals at the subfactor level on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis as defined below

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

CUI

CUI

Adjectival Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

• Factor 2: Technical Capability

– The Government will evaluate all items listed on the Technical Capability Worksheet at the subfactor levels on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis as defined below

• Subfactor A: Equipment (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

• Subfactor B: Management of Operations (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

• Subfactor C: Contractor Confirmation Checklist (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

– Proposals with “Unacceptable” technical capability proposal rating(s) at the subfactor level will not be considered for award

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

CUI

CUI

Adjectival Rating Definition

• Factor 2: Technical Capability Con’t

– The Technical Capability Worksheet is comprised of:

• Questions requiring narrative responses (responses, which merely paraphrase the requirements of the PWS or include such phrases as “will comply” or “standard techniques will be employed” will be considered unacceptable)

• Questions requiring “Yes” or “No” responses

• Submission of certification requirements and certificates

• Submission of charts and tables

• Submission of a Quality Control Plan

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

• Factor 3: Past/Present Performance Proposal

– Using Past/Present Performance Questionnaires submitted by the Offerors’ Past/Present Performance Reference and other information independently obtained from Government or commercial sources, the Government will perform an evaluation of each Offerors’ past/present performance.

– The purpose of the past/present performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offerors’ ability to perform the effort described in the RFP based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past/present performance.

– Past/Present Performance Questionnaires will be evaluated based on recency, relevancy, and consider the quality of performance.

• Recency - Currently being performed or was performed within the last three (3) years from the date of solicitation issuance. Past/present performance information submitted which exceeds the three (3) year limit will not be considered.

• Relevancy - How each referenced contract or effort is considered relevant in terms of scope, magnitude, and complexity as defined by the solicitation.

• Quality of Performance – Evaluated using the responses in Section 3: Performance Information, of the PPQs submitted by the Offeror’s Past/Present Performance Reference, as well as other information independently obtained from Government or commercial sources.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

• Factor 3: Past/Present Performance Proposal Con’t

– The Government will perform an independent assessment of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. The relevancy of each contract reference will be considered in the overall confidence assessment rating for the Offeror.

– The following ratings will be used in evaluating the relevancy of the individual contracts submitted for evaluation:

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

CUI

CUI

Past/Present Performance Relevancy Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past/present performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

CUI

• Factor 3: Past/Present Performance Proposal Con’t

– In assigning the relevancy rating for each contract reference, the Government will consider at a minimum:

• Relevancy: Transportation of fuel by tug and barge of similar scope, magnitude, and complexity, as identified below.

• Scope: Tug and barge transportation of fuel between United States ports and points on the United States ports and their connecting waterways, inland waterways, coastal waterways, rivers, and tributaries.

• Magnitude of Effort: Transport and delivery of approximately 16 million gallons per month with an average of 24 deliveries to multiple locations per month.

• Complexities: Loading, transporting, discharging, and lightering fuel via tug and barge transportation.

– The quality of the performance will be evaluated using the responses in Section 3: Performance Information, of the PPQs submitted by the Offeror’s Past/Present Performance Reference, as well as other information independently obtained from Government or commercial sources.

CUI

• Factor 3: Past/Present Performance Proposal Con’t

– As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will be assigned a single

Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation 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 the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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/present performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

CUI

• Factor 4: Price Proposal

– The Government will conduct a price analysis to ensure a fair and reasonable price using one or more techniques set forth in

FAR 15.404-1.

– The Government will evaluate the individual monthly rates and optional on-call additional Tankerman expense rates for the base period and all option periods, including the six-month extension, in addition to the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), in making a fair and reasonable determination.

– Offerors shall not submit a price for the optional six-month extension of services since the pricing spreadsheet will automatically populate the total. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

– The reimbursable out-of-pocket expense CLIN is provided by the Government as an estimated Time-and-Materials CLIN.

– The TEP is a summation of the total cost for each period of performance to include the Government not to exceed (NTE) amounts for reimbursable out-of-pocket expense CLINs. Optional On-Call Additional Tankerman Expense rates are reimbursable out-of-pocket expense CLINs and therefore are not calculated in the TEP.

• Factor 5: Small Business Utilization

– Small Business Utilization proposals will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis as defined below

– Small Business Utilization will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully demonstrate how the Offeror will secure capacity, maintain capacity, and manage subcontractor’s performance throughout the contract

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

CUI

CUI

Adjectival Rating Definition

• Questions Due: 25 March 2025

• Proposal Due: 4 April 2025

• Contract Performance Start: 1 September 2025

MILESTONES