Sections L and M FUELS 20230619.pdf

FUELS FA8903-23-R-0086

SECTIONS L & M: Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors and Evaluation

Factors for Award

The following instructions and information are a combination of Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and the corresponding evaluation methodology that will be applied to Fuels MATOC proposals resulting from this solicitation. These have been combined for ease of reference and to ensure that all submission instructions have corresponding evaluation methodology or criteria. The terms “Offeror,” “Contractor,” or “Prime” are used interchangeably in this document.

1.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

This section provides instructions for preparing proposals. It is the Offeror's responsibility to ensure the completeness of the proposal submitted. Compliance with these instructions is mandatory and failure to furnish a complete proposal, at the time of proposal submission, may result in the proposal being unacceptable to the Government and may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award. Simply stating that the Offeror understands and intends to comply with this effort or paraphrasing statements in the RFP is inadequate. You are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation by submitting your proposal. All appropriate markings shall include those prescribed IAW FAR

52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR 3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and Source Selection

Information.” Evaluation of a proposal will be conducted solely based on the information contained within it and the Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capabilities not specified.

1.1 PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES

a. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with Offerors in accordance with FAR 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors – Competitive

Acquisition. Clarifications may be conducted as described in FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a technical and a price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the

Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary or in the best interest of the

Government. If discussions are held, discussions will only be held with those Offerors determined to be in the competitive range.

b. The Government intends to award Multiple Indefinite Delivery/ Indefinite Quantity

Contracts under an unrestricted Full and Open (F&O) competition with partial small business set aside. Award will be made to all Technically Acceptable Offerors that provide

Fair and Reasonable Labor Rates (Technically Acceptable, Rates Acceptable (TARA)

2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS SOLICITATION

Draft solicitation documents were posted to SAM previously and the Government received questions from industry. Included with this RFP is Attachment L-01, which answers each

FA8903-23-R-0086

previously submitted question. Any further questions, concerns, or clarifications shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer using Attachment L-02 no later than XX July 2023. All inquiries must be made in writing and submitted electronically to the Contracting Officer and the

Contract Specialist at 772ess.fuels.MATOC@us.af.mil . The Contracting office will provide a notice of receipt, but if none is received, it is the Contractor’s responsibility to follow-up to the

Contracting Officer.

FUELS MATOC EMAIL. The FUELS MATOC email is: 772ess.fuels.MATOC@us.af.mil

2.1.1 Discrepancies

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall notify the CO in writing with supporting rationale immediately, but no later than 10 days after release of the RFP or RFP amendments.

2.1.2 Debriefings

Debriefings. The CO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon the contractor may request and receive a pre-award debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505, or the offeror may choose to wait until after award of the contract to request a post-award debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.506. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing. Offerors will have five business days following a post-award debriefing to submit additional questions related to the debriefing. The agency shall not consider the post-award debriefing to be concluded until the agency delivers its written responses to the unsuccessful offeror.

2.1.3 Exclusions of Non-Compliant Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors, as defined in Section M, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be non-compliant. Non-compliant proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation.

2.1.4 Teaming

2.1.4.1 Use of Teaming Partners: The Government intends to award directly to firms that perform DoD POL Construction Management (Home and On-site Management/Quality Control) in-house (organically) without use of teaming partners. Offerors are advised that the use of teaming partner resources in the technical proposal, including experience and/or key personnel qualifications, is not permitted unless the offeror is a formal Joint Venture and the key personnel/experience are from the JV itself or one of its entities. See evaluation criteria.

2.1.4.2 Joint Ventures (JV): A business arrangement wherein two or more companies agree to form a partnership to perform a specific function. The JV is a discrete business entity separate from each of its component participants. The Joint Venture Agreement is the controlling document concerning what responsibilities each participant will contribute to the JV. This is different from a teaming agreement in that each participant in a teaming agreement maintains its mailto:772ess.fuels.MATOC@us.af.mil separate identity and responsibilities. No contract may be awarded to a joint venture that is not registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). Joint ventures may register by contacting the SAM at http://www.sam.gov. Each contractor may only receive a maximum of one prime contract award.

a. Mentor-Protégé (M-P) is a relationship and not a business entity. M-Ps require formal agreements and thus a Joint Venture relationship must be established and submitted as the Prime Offeror for that technical proposal to be valid.

b. Each potential contractor shall submit only one proposal and only one contract may be awarded to that contractor. Individual entities of Joint Venture (JV) Offers are not permitted to submit a separate proposal independent of that JV, to include being an entity of another JV. In the case where one offeror submits multiple proposals, those offerors may be excluded from evaluation/consideration.

2.1.5. Conglomerate and Affiliated Business Rules:

a. Definitions:

FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SOLICITATION ONLY, THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS

APPLY:

Stand-Alone Company – A company that does not have a parent, sister or subsidiary business relationship with any other entity.

Conglomerate Structure– A business arrangement where the entities of the Parent or Holding

Company remain totally separate from each other. In this arrangement, entities do not have management or business decision rights over Parent, Sister, Subsidiary, and/or other related entities.

Affiliated Structure - A business arrangement where each of the entities have management and business decision rights that extend to the other entities within the corporation or LLC. In this relationship, management and key personnel work interchangeably across the affiliated entities without the requirement for internal permission or delegation memos, documents, or contracts.

b. Prohibition of Multiple Proposal Submissions

Entities of a Conglomerate Structure: Multiple entities of a conglomerate structure may submit individual proposals. However, only one proposal may be submitted per entity under a conglomerate business arrangement, provided that the parent or holding company does not also submit a proposal – further, individual conglomerate entities may not submit key personnel from another entity of that conglomerate, except that personnel from the Parent or Holding Company are permitted, provided that the same personnel from the Parent or Holding company are not duplicated across multiple entity proposals.

Entities of an Affiliated Structure: Affiliated businesses shall submit only one proposal across all entities contained within the affiliated business arrangement. Proposals received from more than one entity under an affiliated business arrangement will not be evaluated. In the case where one entity submits multiple proposals, all proposals from that entity may be removed from consideration.

http://www.sam.gov/

c. Technical Proposal Limitations

Offerors are ONLY permitted to submit experience and/or key personnel qualifications from a sister, parent, or subsidiary company IF the Offeror’s business status is that of an affiliated company. Offerors that are considered part of a conglomerate business arrangement SHALL

NOT utilize experience or key personnel from a sister, parent, or subsidiary. Accordingly, Offerors that submit experience and/or key personnel qualifications from a parent, sister, or subsidiary company that is part of a conglomerate business arrangement, will not be considered.

2.2 VOLUME ORGANIZATION

Volume I – Contract Documentation

• Cover Page

• Contractor Data Sheet (Attachment L-03)

• Banking

• Representations and Certifications – Call out clauses that they must mark

• Sub-Contracting Plan (Attachment L-17): “Other than Small” Businesses only. Not

Required for SB or Foreign Firms

Volume II – Technical Capabilities

• Technical Factor 1 - Bonding

• Technical Factor 2 - Corporate Experience and Structure

• Category 1 - Corporate Experience – (Attachment L-05) One (1) Page per Project

• Summary – Key Personnel Summary Matrix (Attachment L-04)

• Category 2 – Program Manager - One (1) page (Attachment L-06)

• Category 3 – Project Manager - One (1) page (Attachment L-07)

• Category 4 - Corporate Quality Control Manager - One (1) page (Attachment L-08)

• Category 5 – Corporate Safety Manager - One (1) page (Attachment L-09)

• Technical Factor 3 – Qualifications of Key Field Personnel - One (1) page per Key Field

Personnel per pool as applicable (Attachments L-10 through L-15).

Volume III – Labor Rates

Labor Rates (Price) Factor (Attachment L-16)

2.3 PROPOSAL FORMAT

2.3.1 Guidance

SUBMITTAL OF ANY INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE FORMAT

SPECIFICATIONS STATED IN THIS SOLICITATION MAY NOT BE EVALUATED,

RESULTING IN A PROPOSAL THAT IS UNAWARDABLE.

2.3.2 Sufficient Detail

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Offeror(s) shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal.

2.3.4 Price Information

All cost or pricing information shall be addressed in the Price Proposal Volume III. Cost or pricing information shall not be included in Volumes I or II.

2.3.5 Electronic Proposal Submission

Each offeror shall email the electronic submission of their proposal to the FUELS email address at 772ess.fuels.MATOC@us.af.mil. All volumes of an Offeror’s proposal must be submitted together. All Prime and or Joint Venturer information must be incorporated into one coherent email or DoDSafe Drop with all Volumes being delivered as separate PDF documents.

(i) Complete electronic proposals containing all Volumes shall be submitted in searchable

Adobe Acrobat Portable Document File (pdf) format; zip files will not be accepted.

Attachments L-04, FUELS Labor Rate Tables is the exception and shall be submitted in

Microsoft Excel format. Do not password protect any Price Proposal Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. The electronic files shall be live and contain fully traceable formulas and shall not contain references to external workbooks, with all equations and functions fully functional, unlocked, and unhidden.

(ii) Each volume shall be compatible with the following available Government equipment and software products:

Adobe Acrobat Reader

Microsoft Office 2010

(iii)Sound, video (e.g. MPEG), or other files shall not be embedded into the proposal files.

2.3.6 Page Format Restrictions and Limitations

a. Pages shall be 8.5 x 11 inches.

b. Text pages shall be portrait oriented. Graphics and tables may be landscape oriented if required to properly present the information.

c. Pages shall be typed with at least single line spacing. No condensed fonts allowed. Times

New Roman, Arial, or Calibri. The font size shall be no less than 11 point except for the following: Tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be no smaller than 8 point.

d. Margins on all four edges of each sheet shall be at least one inch.

e. Proprietary statements, security markings, and page numbers can fall within the defined margin area and shall be no smaller than 8 font size.

f. Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If page limits are exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal.

VOLUME CONTENT

3.0 VOLUME I – OFFEROR INFORMATION

3.1 COVER PAGE AND VALIDITY STATEMENT

The Cover page shall address the offerors point of contact including the authorized signing representative. The Offeror shall make a clear statement that the proposal is valid until the date in the Fuels MATOC solicitation and any resulting amendments. Any applicable restriction on disclosure and use of the data provided in the Offeror’s proposal shall include the appropriate markings prescribed in FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data, and FAR

3.104-4, Disclosure, Protection, and Marking of Contractor Bid or Proposal Information and

Source Selection Information.”

3.2 CONTRACTOR DATA INFORMATION

a. The Government requests that Offerors provide Attachment L-03, Contractor Data

Sheet to acquisition mailbox 772ess.fuels.MATOC@us.af.mil, on or before 2:00 pm

(CST) – XXXXX (date established in Contract Opportunities on beta.SAM.gov website).

b. Once the contract is awarded, all successful contractors will be added into a database and will receive an email with further directions for updating contractor information.

3.3 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY

In accordance with FAR 9.103(b), prior to being eligible for award, the CO must make an affirmative determination of responsibility for potential awardees. The information requested in this volume is necessary to establish contractor responsibility. Information will not be evaluated, but will be used solely for the purpose of determining contractor responsibility.

3.3.1 Representations and Certifications

The offeror shall review FAR 52.204-8 and certify in the cover letter that paragraph (d) applies such that the offeror has updated SAM in accordance with 52.204-8(d). The NAICS code for this solicitation is 237120. The size standard for this NAICS is $45M.

3.3.2 Financial Responsibility

a. As part of the Financial Responsibility Determination, the CO will rely on information from the cognizant banking institution. The offeror shall complete the Attachment L-03, Contractor Data Sheet to provide banking contact information and submit with the proposal. Additionally, offerors shall request that their Bank or Credit Union (Financial

Institution) complete the Banking Status Inquiry located in Attachment L-XX and submit it to acquisition mailbox 772ess.fuels.MATOC@us.af.mil on or before the submission deadline for the proposal. The Banking Status Inquiry will not be evaluated as part of the technical and price proposal; however, it’s evaluation is required to determine contractor responsibility prior to award. A contract may only be awarded to the offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR 9.104.

3.3.3 Subcontracting Plan

Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Applicable to “Other than Small Businesses” Only – Small

Business Offerors and Foreign Firm Offerors that will only perform work outside of the US and its Territories are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan): The offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 Alternate II, FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting

Plan (DoD Contracts), and DFARS 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test

Program). IAW FAR 19.702 (b)(3), Small Business Subcontracting Plans are not required for work that will be performed entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas. The

Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be assessed as part of responsibility and must meet the

FAR, DFARS, and AFFARS requirements prior to award of a contract. If small business subcontract possibilities do not exist or are limited, the Offeror’s plan must state such and provide rationale supporting the assertion.

These goals represent the percent of small business subcontracting as it relates to total subcontracting dollars, not the total contract dollar value:

Small Business (SB) 30% of total awarded dollars

Small Disadvantage (SDB) 5% of total subcontracting dollars

Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5% of total subcontracting dollars

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

3% of total subcontracting dollars

HUBZone Small Business 3% of total subcontracting dollars

Describe how specific subcontracting percentage goals and targets will be met for the contract expressed in dollars and in percentages of the total contract dollars and total subcontracting dollars to each socio-economic small business category listed above. The subcontracting goals may be met by any combination of subcontracts or vendor purchases and should make use of small businesses to the maximum extent practicable. For proposal purposes, an anticipated obligated value is provided for completing the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Offerors shall use an anticipated program ceiling of $100M over the 10-Year Program Life Cycle.

3.4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

3.4.1 Basis For Contract Award

Award will be made to Technically Acceptable Offerors that provide Fair and Reasonable Labor

Rates (Technically Acceptable, Rates Acceptable (TARA). Award will be made to all Offerors that provide a technically acceptable Volume II Technical Proposal, and whose Volume III Rate

Proposal is considered Fair and Reasonable.

3.4.2 Gated Evaluation:

The Volume II technical proposal will be evaluated in two phases/gates. Gate 1 will be comprised of the following technical factors: 1- Bonding; and 2-Corporate Experience and

Corporate Key Personnel. Only those offerors that receive a technical rating of acceptable in all criteria in Gate 1 will progress to the next phase/gate in evaluation. Phase/Gate 2 will consist of the technical factor 4- Key Field Personnel for each desired pool, and Volume III – Rates

Proposal.

To be considered for evaluation and contract award, Offerors are required to submit all volumes with their proposal. The Air Force will not request a separate submission for the gate 2 evaluation. Each proposal will be independently rated against the criteria. While the

Government source selection evaluation team and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process is subjective by nature and professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. To arrive at a source selection decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team's evaluations of the Factors described below.

4.0 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

4.1 DEFINITIONS. Contractors shall use the following definitions while preparing proposals for this acquisition. These definitions are applicable to Sections L & M. Throughout the document terms are italicized for reference to indicate there is a definition.

4.1.1. COMPLETED PROJECT. For DoD Wetted System Repairs (General Pool) and API

653 Tank Repairs (Tank Repair Pool), a “Completed project is defined as construction completed and accepted by the Government (beneficial occupancy established) within the past FIVE years from the date this request for proposals was issued. For Hydrant System

Repairs (Hydrant Pool), a “Completed project” is defined as construction completed and accepted by the Government (beneficial occupancy established) within the past TEN years from the date this request for proposals was issued. See definition of “project” below.

4.1.2 PROJECT. A “Project” is defined as work performed pursuant to ONE SPECIFIC

TASK ORDER of an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contract. An IDIQ type contract, in and of itself, is NOT considered a project. “Project” is also defined as a single, stand alone, site-specific contract. If a Task Order or Contract includes multiple phases of completion, each with its own separate (Beneficial Occupancy Date) BOD, then each phase is considered a

“project.” Example: If you have a Task Order with four API 653 tanks, but you’ve only completed 2 of the 4 tank repairs and the Government thus has accepted (BOD’d) each tank separately, then each tank repair is its own separate project. HOWEVER, for purposes of evaluation, the minimum project sizes ($500K for Wetted Systems and $1M for API 653 Tank

Repairs and Hydrant Systems) apply to EACH Phase (BOD’d facility). Example: If your tank repair task order includes four tanks, and you BOD’d one tank with $500K in repairs, and another tank with $2M in repairs, then only the tank with $2M in repairs would be considered an acceptable project for this solicitation, since the minimum project size for API 653 tank repairs is

$1M.

4.1.3. DOD POL FACILITIES. DoD POL Facilities are defined as Petroleum, Oil, and

Lubricants (POL or `fuels') facilities that are located on a United States Department of Defense installation (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Army or Air Force National Guard, or Reserve bases). DoD POL facilities include fuel farms, above ground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, cut-and-cover tanks, hydrant fuel distribution systems including piping, pumps, valves, hydrant and filter separators, oil water separator, bulk storage systems, transfer pump houses, POL control systems, stilling wells, containment areas, fuel pits, and fill stands. The definition of DoD POL facilities does not include facilities on a Coast Guard base, NASA location, or any other federal, commercial, or private facility, to include commercial supply pipelines leading up to and/or connecting to DoD Installations.

4.1.4. DOD POL WETTED SYSTEM REPAIRS: DoD POL Wetted System Repairs is defined as any construction or repair of DoD POL WETTED facilities, where the construction/repairs are MECHANICAL OR ELECTRICAL in nature, for the following types of wetted DoD POL facilities: above ground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, cut-and-cover tanks, hydrant fuel distribution systems including pumps, valves, hydrant and filter separators, bulk storage systems, pump houses, fuel pits, and fill stands. To be considered relevant, the work must have been substantially mechanical and/or electrical construction/repair in which the facility or asset constructed/repaired was taken out of service during the repair. Coatings, abatement, cathodic protection, civil works, demolition, or maintenance-type efforts are NOT relevant. Construction/Repair to DoD POL-related facilities that do NOT touch fuel during normal daily operations (containment, canopies, fuels operation facilities, buildings, pavement, etc) are NOT considered Wetted Systems and are thus not relevant.

4.1.5. SPECIALIZED API 653 TANK REPAIRS: New field-erected and/or cut and cover fuel tank construction pursuant to API 650 and/or tank repair projects resultant from API 653 inspections (or modified API 653 inspections) in which the construction requires the removal of the tank(s) from service, performing multi-disciplinary repairs, to include mechanical repairs, patch plate/pit repairs, substantial welding (not just incidental welding) and significant coatings

(full interior shell or exterior shell coatings - not just spot coatings), and successfully returning the tank(s) to operation. (Incidental work around an API 653 fuel tank is not considered API 653 construction and/or repair.)

4.1.6. SPECIALIZED HYDRANT SYSTEM REPAIRS: Infrastructure construction (new construction) or repair for JP/Jet-A type products to support military aircraft hydrant fueling systems. Each hydrant system project must demonstrate experience making multi-disciplinary repairs or executing new construction of at least three of the following components of TYPE III, IV, or V hydrant systems: hydrant pumps, hydrant valves, hydrant pits, hydrant pump houses, hydrant filtration systems, hydrant distribution pipelines, and hydrant system controls and motor control centers. To be considered relevant, the new construction or repair must have been substantially mechanical and/or electrical. For repair projects, the facility or asset repaired must have been taken out of service during repair efforts. Coatings, abatement, cathodic protection, civil works, demolition, or maintenance-type efforts are NOT relevant.

Construction/Repair to DoD POL-related facilities that do NOT touch fuel during normal daily operations (containment, canopies, fuels operation facilities, buildings, pavement, etc) are NOT considered Hydrant Systems and are thus not relevant. (Incidental work on and/or around a hydrant system, such as tanks, equipment, and appurtenances attached to the hydrant loop, is not considered Hydrant System construction and/or repair.)

4.2. PARTICIPATION IN SPECIALIZED POOLS

Only those offerors whose Volume II Technical Proposals are deemed Technically Acceptable for a specialized pool, will be afforded the opportunity to provide proposals for that pool at the task order level.

4.3. SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION- GATE 1 CRITERIA

4.3.1 Technical Factor 1 – Bonding

4.3.1.1. SECTION L Submission Requirement: The Offeror must provide a letter from their surety, on surety letterhead, stating the contractor has a relationship with the surety and identifies the Prime contractor’s single and aggregate bonding capacities. For Joint Venture Offerors, the surety letter must clearly identify that the surety is bonding for the Joint Venture itself, not the individual entity(s).

4.3.1.2. SECTION M Evaluation Method:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

To be considered acceptable, the offeror must meet the Minimum Qualifications for the corresponding business type. Offerors that do not demonstrate the Minimum Qualifications identified below will be rated Unacceptable.

4.3.1.3. Minimum Qualifications: To be determined acceptable, the contractor must demonstrate the ability to receive bonding for their corresponding business type at or above the following minimum capacities.

Business Types:

- Small Business o $10M minimum single bonding capacity o $25M aggregate bonding capacity

- Other than Small Business o $25M minimum single bonding capacity o $50M aggregate bonding capacity

- Foreign Firms o Foreign firms working exclusively outside the United States and its outlying areas, are exempt from this requirement where there are different standards for bonding. Firms that do not submit bonding information must represent that they do not intend to propose on work in the United States or outlying areas on

Attachment L-03 Contract Data Sheet. Foreign Firms that do not provide bonding information will be determined as not responsible at the task order level for any task order that requires performance and payment bonds. Performance and

Payment bonds will be required for task orders whose performance is within the

United States or its outlying areas. Outlying areas is defined in FAR 2.101.

Foreign firms that intend to propose on any task orders in the United States or its outlying areas must submit the bonding evidence requirements of this Technical

Factor 1.

Surety letters must be from an approved surety listed with the Department of Treasury. The list of approved sureties can be found at http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/suretyBnd/c570_a-z.htm. Letters must be notarized and signed by someone who can represent the surety. Letters signed by agents are unacceptable unless accompanied by a Power of Attorney granting proper authority to the agent.

4.3.2. TECHNICAL FACTOR 2 - CORPORATE EXPERIENCE AND CORPORATE

KEY PERSONNEL

4.3.2.1. SECTION L Submission Requirement: Complete Attachment L-04 Key Personnel

Summary Matrix to identify all Key Personnel (both Corporate and Field Personnel) proposed for this MATOC. This Matrix will not be rated or scored, but rather used for organizational purposes to assist in evaluating the complete proposal. For This Technical Factor 2, Offerors shall provide a narrative in accordance with the Outlines in Attachments L-05 through L-09, in accordance with the categories identified below, to demonstrate the extent and breadth of the

Prime’s DoD POL construction and repair experience and the qualifications of the Corporate personnel. All Corporate Key Personnel must be employed by the Prime offeror (or in the case of

Joint Ventures, Corporate Key Personnel must be employed by one of the Joint Venture entities).

The offeror is responsible for ensuring enough detail is provided for the Government to evaluate adherence to the minimum qualifications. The Offeror’s proposed corporate key personnel shall be cross referenced (identified) in Attachment L-04 Key Personnel Summary Matrix.

4.3.2.2. SECTION M Evaluation Method:

To be considered acceptable, the offeror must meet the corresponding Minimum Qualifications for each category below. Offerors that do not demonstrate the Minimum Qualifications identified below for all categories will be rated Unacceptable.

4.3.2.2.1. Category 1- Corporate Experience Submission Requirement: Offerors shall provide a narrative, not to exceed one page per project, that summarizes their DoD POL Wetted

System Repairs experience as a Prime Contractor. The narrative shall describe THREE specific projects, each with the following minimum characteristics.

http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/ref/suretyBnd/c570_a-z.htm

a. Performed by the Offeror as a Prime Contractor.

b. Demonstrate DoD POL Wetted System Repairs on DoD POL Facilities completed within five years from the date this RFP was issued. See above for definitions of “DoD POL

Wetted System Repairs”, “DoD POL Facilities,” “completed projects,” and “project”.

c. The value for wetted system repairs on each completed project meets or exceeds

$500,000. Example: Where a project contains secondary containment, cathodic protection, and fill stand repairs, the value of the electrical and mechanical fill stand repairs, by itself, must meet or exceed the $500,000.

The narrative must clearly indicate that the Offeror served as the Prime Contractor and directly provided Program Management, Project Management, and onsite Superintendent and Quality

Control support for the projects provided. Projects completed using teaming partners or subcontracted corporate and/or on-site key personnel will not be considered acceptable.

d. EXCEPTION: While it will not be allowed during performance of the FUELS MATOC, the

Air Force recognizes that in this industry, there have been occasions where a “Key

Subcontractor” performed the actual construction/trades work, and because the project was awarded to a Prime Contractor with minimal Fuels Infrastructure experience, the project was essentially “passed through” to that Key Subcontractor, who also provided the On-site supervision and quality control. In some cases, these individuals remained employed by the

Key Subcontractor. In other cases, the Key Subcontractor “lent” their personnel to the Prime

Contractor via a secondment or other legal arrangement where the Prime temporarily employed the Superintendent and/or QCM for that project, but where the Superintendent and

QCM essentially still remained employees of (committed to) the Key Subcontractor and thus

‘returned’ to the Key Subcontractor after the project was complete. IN THESE INSTANCES, it is acceptable for that Key Subcontractor to submit a proposal for this MATOC as a Prime

Contractor and the AF will consider projects submitted as a Key Subcontractor as if that Key

Subcontractor was the Prime Contractor on those projects, so long as the Key Subcontractor provided “or lent” the Superintendent and QCM for those projects for/to the Prime

Contractor, and the projects meet all of the other requirements for this Evaluation Criterion.

4.3.2.2.2. Minimum Qualifications - Corporate Experience: The purpose of this factor is to show that the Prime Contractor is experienced performing construction on a DoD installation.

Offeror’s must demonstrate at least THREE projects completed (beneficial occupancy established) within the last five years from the date the RFP was issued. Projects must be for construction or repair of DoD Facilities and have a construction or repair value of $1,000,000 or higher. Projects do NOT have to be for POL facilities, but must be for CONSTRUCTION OR

REPAIR of facilities on a DoD Installation. Projects must have been performed by the Prime

Offeror as a Prime Contractor – Projects performed by Teaming Partners or Major

Subcontractors will not be considered and may render this factor unacceptable. For Joint-Venture

Offerors, projects may be submitted from any of the JV entities, or from the JV firm itself.

4.3.2.3. Category 2 - Program Manager: The Program Manager is responsible for the firm’s overall DoD POL program. DoD POL Project Managers, Corporate QC Manager, and Corporate

Safety Manager shall report to the Program Manager for DoD POL-related efforts. The Offeror shall submit a 1-page narrative that summarizes the experience of the Program Manager, to include a general description of DoD Construction Management experience to demonstrate the type, duration, and role of the Program Manager, and a detailed description of the types of DoD

POL Wetted System Repairs completed, to include completion dates and the location (DoD installation) of the work.

4.3.2.4. Minimum Qualifications – Program Manager: The Program Manager must demonstrate a minimum of 10 years of experience actively working in DoD Construction

Management during their career, either as a Program Manager (PgM), Project Manager (PM), Construction Manager/Superintendent (CM/SS), or QC Manager (QCM). The Program Manager must also have completed and managed/overseen at least TWO DoD POL Wetted System

Repairs projects of at least $500,000 in a PgM, PM, CM/SS, or QCM role.

4.3.2.5. Category 3 - Project Manager: While it is anticipated that most firms will have more than one DoD POL Project Manager, for purposes of this evaluation, the contractor must provide one Project Manager to evaluate. A Project Manager is responsible for the execution of individual DoD POL construction projects. The Offeror shall submit a 1-page narrative that summarizes narrative shall summarize the experience of the Project Manager, to include a generalized description of experience as a Project manager for DoD construction projects to substantiate five years of experience, as well as a detailed description of the types of DoD POL

Wetted System Repairs completed, to include completion dates/ Beneficial Occupancy Date

(BOD) and the location (DoD installation) of the work. All experience must represent construction on a DoD installation.

4.3.2.6. Minimum Qualifications- Project Manager: The Project Manager must demonstrate a minimum of FIVE years of experience during their career, as a Project Manager for DoD construction projects. Experience in any other role, to include Construction

Manager/Superintendent or QC Manager will not be considered acceptable. The Project Manager must also have served as Project Manager for at least TWO DoD POL Wetted System Repairs projects of at least $500,000. The projects must have been completed within the past five years from the date the RFP was issued, and the Project Manager must have served in the Project

Manager role for all pre-construction activities, and at least half of the field construction duration of the project.

4.3.2.7. Category 4 - Corporate QC Manager: The Corporate QC Manager is responsible for the firm’s overall QC program, providing oversight and guidance to on-site DoD POL Quality

Control Managers and associated projects. The Corporate QC Manager also provides quality assurance of the firm’s quality control program. The Corporate QC Manager reports all DoD

POL quality control-related issues and concerns to the Program Manager. The Offeror shall submit a 1-page narrative that summarizes narrative shall summarize the experience of the QC

Manager, to include a description of the types of DoD construction projects completed, completion dates, and the location (DoD installation) of the work. All experience must represent

4.3.2.8. Minimum Qualifications – Corporate QC Manager: The Corporate QC Manager must demonstrate a minimum of TEN years of experience during their career as an On-site and/or Corporate Quality Control Manager for DoD construction projects. Experience does not need to be for DoD POL system repairs but must be for DoD construction projects.

4.3.2.9. Category 5 - Corporate Safety Manager: The Corporate Safety Manager is responsible for the firm’s overall Safety program, providing oversight and guidance to on-site

Site Safety and Health (SSHO) Managers and associated projects. The Corporate Safety

Manager also provides quality assurance of the firm’s overall safety program. The Corporate

Safety Manager reports all DoD POL safety issues and concerns to the Program Manager. The

Offeror shall submit a 1-page narrative that summarizes narrative shall summarize the experience of the Safety Manager, to include a description of the types of DoD construction projects completed, completion dates, and the location (DoD installation) of the work. All experience must represent construction on a DoD installation.

4.3.2.10. Minimum Qualifications - Corporate Safety Manager: The Corporate Safety

Manager must demonstrate a minimum of TEN years of experience during their career as an On-site and/or Corporate Safety Manager for DoD construction projects. Experience does not need to be for DoD POL system repairs but must be for DoD construction projects.

4.3.2.11. Technical Factor 2 Note: Offerors shall ensure the experience and qualifications of corporate experience and personnel submitted provide enough information for the Government to determine the extent of the Offeror’s experience, and use of in-house (organic) resources for program and project management/oversight/quality control.

4.3.3. Technical Factor 3 – Qualification of Key Field Personnel

4.3.3.1. Section L: Submission Requirements

Offerors shall first identify the pool(s) for which they want to be considered and submit

Onsite Key Field Personnel information for each desired pool. Available pools include the

General DoD POL Repair Pool, the API 653 Tank Repair Pool, and/or the Hydrant System

Repair Pool. Offerors that are considered Acceptable for the API 653 Tank Repair Pool or the

Hydrant System Repair Pool will automatically be considered Acceptable for the General DoD

POL Repair Pool. Accordingly, offerors do not have to submit key personnel qualifications for the General DoD POL Repair Pool if they are confident that they will meet the minimum requirements for either of the other two specialized technical pools. The Offeror’s proposed Key

Field Personnel shall be cross referenced (identified) in Attachment L-04 Key Personnel

Summary Matrix. An offeror may submit key field personnel only for the General DoD POL

Repair Pool if they do not wish to participate in the other two specialized pools.

4.3.3.2. FOR EACH DESIRED POOL. Offerors shall provide a narrative, not-to-exceed one page per position, for the below Onsite Key Personnel, in accordance with the Outlines in

Attachments L-10 to L-15. Offeror shall provide at least TWO qualified Site

Superintendents/SSHO and TWO qualified Onsite Quality Control Managers (QCM). The same Site Superintendents/SSHO can be submitted for more than one Pool, but submitted Site

Superintendents/SSHO cannot also be submitted for the role of QCM in any pool. Conversely, the same QCMs can be submitted for more than one Pool, but submitted QCMs cannot be submitted for the role of Superintendent in any pool. All Onsite Key Personnel must be employed by the Prime Offeror (or in the case of Joint Ventures, key personnel must be employed by one of the Joint Venture entities). The offeror is responsible for ensuring enough detail is provided for the Government to evaluate adherence to the minimum qualifications.

4.3.3.3. SECTION M: Evaluation Method

Qualifications of Key Field Personnel.

4.3.3.4. This technical factor will use the following ratings for evaluation:

To be considered acceptable in any given pool, Offerors must:

ONE - Be able to provide TWO qualified Site Superintendents/SSHO and TWO qualified Onsite

Quality Control Managers (QCM).

AND

TWO- The key personnel must meet the Minimum Qualifications described within each pool below; and the projects submitted for each key person must also meet the definitions provided for each pool and have been completed within five years from the date this RFP was issued.

Offerors that are considered Acceptable for the API 653 Tank Repair Pool or the Hydrant

System Repair Pool will automatically be considered Acceptable for the General DoD POL

Repair Pool. The following three examples of evaluation demonstrate some of the multiple ways this technical factor may be evaluated:

General Pool API 653 Hydrants

Super/SSHO Not submitted A A

Super/SSHO Not submitted A U

QCM Not submitted A A

QCM Not submitted A U

RATING PER POOL A A U

TECH FACTOR 3 RATING ACCEPTABLE

Contract Award Includes: General API 653 Not Included

General Pool API 653 Hydrants

Super/SSHO A U U

Super/SSHO A A U

QCM A U A

QCM A U A

RATING PER POOL A U U

TECH FACTOR 3 RATING ACCEPTABLE

Contract Award Includes: General Not Included Not Included

General Pool API 653 Hydrants

Super/SSHO Not submitted A A

Super/SSHO Not submitted A U

QCM Not submitted A A

QCM Not submitted U U

RATING PER POOL U U U

TECH FACTOR 3 RATING UNACCEPTABLE

Contract Award Includes: No Award No Award No Award

Further, while the same Site Superintendents/SSHO can be submitted for more than one Pool, if a submitted Site Superintendents/SSHO is also submitted for the role of QCM in any pool, the

Factor will be considered Unacceptable. Similarly, while the same QCMs can be submitted for more than one Pool, if a QCM is also submitted for the role of Superintendent in any pool, the

Factor will be considered Unacceptable. To be considered acceptable, the offeror must provide two separate and qualified teams, each consisting of an independent Superintendent/SSHO and

QCM (a total of four available onsite personnel). All Onsite Key Personnel must be currently employed by the Prime Offeror (or in the case of Joint Ventures, key personnel must be currently employed by one of the Joint Venture entities). Promises of future Prime Contractor employment will not be considered acceptable – submitted personnel must be currently employed by the Prime Offeror (or in the case of a Joint Venture, one of the Joint Venture entities).

Offerors that are considered Acceptable for the API 653 Tank Repair Pool or the Hydrant

System Repair Pool will automatically be considered Acceptable for the Generalized DoD POL

Wetted Repair Pool. Offerors that receive an acceptable rating in the Generalized DoD POL

Wetted Repair Pool will receive an acceptable rating overall for this factor. An offeror that does not receive an acceptable rating in the Generalized DoD POL Wetted Repair Pool will be rated as unacceptable for this technical factor.

For the offeror to participate in task order solicitations within a specialty pool, the offeror must receive an acceptable rating for that pool in this Fuels MATOC evaluation. The award document will identify the pools in which the contractor is qualified to participate.

Offerors that do not demonstrate the Minimum Qualifications or do not provide the required number of personnel will be rated Unacceptable for that pool.

4.3.3.5 GENERAL DOD POL REPAIR POOL (See definition of “DoD POL Wetted System

Repairs” above to ensure the projects submitted for each key personnel are substantial enough to meet the definition provided.)

4.3.3.5.1. Site Superintendent/SSHO Description: The Site Superintendent has the onsite authority to act for the contractor and is responsible for the onsite coordination, management, and execution of all onsite activities. The Site Superintendent is also dual-hatted to cover the duties of the Site Safety and Health Officer.

4.3.3.5.2. Minimum Qualifications: Each Site Superintendent must demonstrate a minimum of

5 years of experience during their career as an onsite DoD Construction Superintendent. Roles as a Project Manager, QC Manager, or any other position will not be considered as part of the 5 years. The narrative shall summarize the experience of each Site Superintendent, to include a generalized description of experience as a Site Superintendent for DoD construction projects to substantiate five years of experience.

Site Superintendents must also serve as SSHO and thus the narrative shall document that each superintendent has completed the 30-Hour OSHA Construction Safety Course within the last five years from the date the RFP was issued and demonstrate at least one year of full time onsite

SSHO experience working on DoD Construction projects (a dual-hatted role as SSHO is acceptable). Site Superintendents must have the credentials of a SSHO to be considered

Acceptable.

Each Site Superintendent’s qualifications must demonstrate at least TWO DoD POL Wetted

System Repairs projects of at least $500,000 each. The projects must have been completed within the past five years from the date the RFP was issued, and each site superintendent must have served in an onsite superintendent or onsite QCM role for A MINIMUM OF FOUR

MONTHS IN THE FIELD (any time between construction mobilization and BOD). The narrative must include a detailed description of completed projects that demonstrate that they were primarily for DoD POL Wetted System Repairs, to include completion dates (BOD) and the location (DoD installation) of the work. All experience must represent construction on a DoD installation.

4.3.3.5.3. Onsite Quality Control Manager (QCM) Description: The Onsite Quality Control

Manager is responsible for the contractor’s three-phase quality control program, to include the accuracy of the project QC Plan, accuracy and timeliness of daily QC Reports and site test reports, accuracy of all material submittals, ensuring all delivered/installed materials are those that were approved through the submittal process, and the quality of craftsmanship/construction in accordance with governing criteria.

4.3.3.5.4. Minimum Qualifications: The Onsite Quality Control Manager (QCM) must demonstrate a minimum of 5 years of experience during their career as an onsite DoD

Construction QCM. Roles as a Project Manager, Superintendent, or any other position will not be considered as part of the 5 years.. The QCM must also have served as an onsite QCM or onsite superintendent role for at least TWO DoD POL Wetted System Repairs projects of at least $500,000 each. The projects must have been completed within the past five years from the date the RFP was issued, and the onsite QCM must have served in the onsite QCM or

Superintendent role for A MINIMUM OF FOUR MONTHS IN THE FIELD (any time between construction mobilization and BOD).

The narrative shall summarize the experience of the onsite QCM, to include a generalized description of experience as an Onsite QCM for DoD construction projects to substantiate five years of experience, as well as a detailed description of the completed projects that demonstrate that they were primarily for DoD POL Wetted System Repairs, to include completion dates

4.3.3.6. SPECIALIZED API 653 TANK REPAIR POOL (See definition of “API 653 Tank

Repair Projects” above to ensure the projects submitted are substantial enough to meet the definition provided.)

4.3.3.6.1. Site Superintendent/SSHO Description: The Site Superintendent has the onsite authority to act for the contractor and is responsible for the onsite coordination, management, and execution of all onsite activities. The Site Superintendent is also dual-hatted to cover the duties of the Site Safety and Health Officer.

4.3.3.6.2. Minimum Qualifications: Each Site Superintendent must demonstrate a minimum of

5 years of experience during their career as a onsite DoD Construction Superintendent. Roles as a Project Manager, QC Manager, or any other position will not be considered as part of the 5 years. The narrative shall summarize the experience of each Site Superintendent, to include a generalized description of experience as an On-Site Superintendent for DoD construction projects to substantiate five years of experience.

years from the date the RFP was issued, and demonstrate at least one year of full time onsite

SSHO experience working on DoD Construction projects (a dual-hatted role as SSHO is

Each Site Superintendent’s qualifications must demonstrate at least TWO DoD POL API 653 tank repair projects of at least…