SP470220R0014 Section M.pdf

AUTOMATED FUEL HANDLING EQUIPMENT (AFHE)

MANTENANCE

Section M SP4702-20-R-0014

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

For Official Use Only – Source Selection Sensitive See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made to the responsible firm whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government, technical factors, past performance and price considered. The Government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality services considered necessary to achieve the stated objectives of this acquisition, with fair and reasonable prices. Award will be made on the basis of trade-off source selection process. Offerors are advised that a proposal meeting the objectives and requirements with the lowest price may not necessarily be selected if award to a higher priced proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the Government. However, between proposals evaluated as essentially technically equal, price will become the major consideration in selecting the best value.

A 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 on the basis of the material presented in the written proposals.

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 price 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 MAY BE REJECTED WITHOUT FURTHER

EVALUATION.

Proposals will be rated in accordance with the evaluation factors listed below. Evaluation factors (other than price) are significantly more important than price. However, price is an important factor and shall be considered when preparing proposals. While evaluation factors (other than price) are significantly more important than price, the importance of price as an evaluation factor increases with the degree of technical equality of the proposals. Accordingly, when Offerors are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, price 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 capability, or when specific strengths and/or benefits associated with a technically superior offer do not support the payment of any associated cost or price premium. In summary, cost/technical capability, tradeoffs will be made.

Award without Discussion The Government intends to 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 an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (refer to FAR 15.306(c)).

No Award The Government reserves the right not to make an award as a result of this solicitation if such award is determined contrary to the best interest of the Government.

Single Award The Government anticipates the award of a single Firm Fixed Price, 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.

PROPOSAL AND EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Maintenance Program Management Approach/ Personnel Qualifications

Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: CyberSecurity Factor 5: Price

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors The Government will evaluate proposals using the factors listed below. Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor 2, 3 and 4. All non-price factors (Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4), when combined are significantly more important than price. As the non-price ratings become more equal among proposals, the evaluated price becomes more important.

Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors that the Government deems appropriate.

Note: If a proposal receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the Non-cost Factors the entire proposal being determined "Unacceptable" and will be ineligible for award.

The awardee will be the Offeror who presents the best value approach to the Government’s requirement.

The Government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality supplies and services considered necessary to achieve the required level of maintenance and sustainment award. If needed the Government may enter into discussions with all Offeror(s) to determine if an Offeror fully understands the requirement.

DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The Offeror shall use the requirements outlined in the PWS to respond to Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Factor 1: Technical Approach The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach that addresses requirements defined in the solicitation to determine how well it:

• Successfully fulfills the Government’s requirements

• Illustrates knowledge and understanding of Automated Fuel Handling Equipment (AFHE)

Systems maintenance requirements

• Demonstrates an understanding of AFHE Systems maintenance concept of operations

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

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

• Preventive Maintenance: The detailed processes and procedures the Offeror will use to schedule, complete and report required preventive maintenance (i.e. staffing plan for each site, labor mix, PM procedures, etc.).

• Corrective Maintenance: Methods, procedures, and personnel the Offeror will use to perform troubleshooting functions of AFHE systems (hardware and software) to locate the cause of faults, replace defective components/equipment, and make necessary calibration adjustments to restore AFHE functionality at the sites listed (i.e. staffing plan for each site, labor mix, PM procedures, etc.).

• Corrective Maintenance: Procedures for handling trouble calls, trouble call support, and urgent and/or emergency conditions as to include how the completed work will be tracked in the ITSM.

• Transition In: Addresses execution of smooth 90-day transition/ receipt activities.

• Transition In: Details how the Offeror will coordinate communications and knowledge transfer with the incumbent and with the COR/COTR to ensure uninterrupted workflow during the transition process.

• Transition Out: Addresses execution of smooth 90-day transition/turnover/receipt activities as a result of contractor change.

• Transition Out: Details how the Offeror will coordinate communications and knowledge transfer with the new Contractor and with the COR/COTR to ensure uninterrupted workflow during the transition process.

Factor 2: Maintenance Program Management Approach/Personnel Qualifications The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s Project Management Approach to assess the Offeror’s plans for strategy and a management organization structure for the effective and efficient management of contract activities to successfully fulfill the requirements of the PWS.

The information presented in the Offeror’s proposal together with information from any other available sources will provide the primary input for evaluation of this factor. The Government reserves the right to verify personnel performance on other contracts identified by the Offeror in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to use other available information to evaluate personnel. The Government may query contract references and other end user representatives regarding personnel experience and quality of experience and performance.

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s resumes proposed for the Key Personnel. The resumes of personnel proposed will be evaluated for a clear demonstration that the proposed resources meet or exceed the education and experience requirements outlined in the PWS and below.

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it provides:

• Operational Plan that demonstrates plan to organize, communicate, direct, and coordinate the resources needed to perform preventive maintenance and corrective maintenance.

• Plan for personnel management including program specific training and required certifications;

continuity and management, to include proposed personnel labor categories, hours and labor mix; the organizational structure and the use of proposed team members and subcontractors in support of this effort, to include OCONUS locations (e.g. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) requirements).

• Program Manager (PM) Key Personnel PM shall have full authority to act for the contractor on all contract matters relating to daily operation of this contract. The Program Manager shall have at least ten (10) years’ relevant technical experience in the commercial or Government fuel terminal pipeline operations or projects, including five (5) years of experience in a management or supervisory capacity and five

(5) years in the functional area of the program to be managed. Program Management experience should include technology assessments, systems design, systems analysis, installation logistics, programmatic and technical support of large, complex integrated electronic/electrical/mechanical systems. A Bachelor’s degree in engineering, business or technical sciences, from an accredited university or college.

Factor 1 and 2 will be used to evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach meets all requirements and challenges, and demonstrates a clear understanding of the AFHE Systems maintenance requirements as described in the solicitation. The evaluation of the Technical Approach and Maintenance Program Management/Personnel Qualification Approach will ensure that the proposal identifies how risks to schedule and/or performance will be mitigated. The figure below provides the ratings descriptions.

Technical and Risk Ratings

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Green 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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is not eligible for award.

Figure 1: Factor 1 and 2 Capability Rating Method

Factor 3: Past Performance

Recency of Prior Contracts The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Past performance that is or was completed in the last three years prior to the solicitation issue date considered to be recent; experience that is less recent will not be evaluated as highly as recent experience.

Past Performance Recency Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition 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 10 years of this solicitation.

Not Recent Past performance beyond the past 10 years this solicitation.

Figure 2: Past Performance Recency Rating Method

Relevance of Prior Contracts The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired. The Government will evaluate relevancy of the Offeror’s prior projects to the current PWS requirements as provided in the Offeror’s written proposal. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement.

More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant past performance. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontracting/teaming. Highly relevant past performance requires that the majority of the prior contracts provided are essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance Relevance Ratings

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.

Figure 3: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Quality of Products or Services The third aspect is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The past 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. Evaluation of this aspect will be based on information provided in past performance information and the Offeror’s proposal, and may include the Government’s independent verification with Offeror’s prior customers or through past performance databases such as 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 this information.

Past Performance Quality Ratings

Outstanding Response demonstrates historical projects with outstanding experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, staying on schedule and within budget. Generally has an outstanding overall past performance based on Past Performance Questionnaires.

Good Response demonstrates historical projects with good experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, staying on schedule and within budget. Generally has a good overall past performance based on Past Performance Questionnaires.

Acceptable Response demonstrates historical projects with generally satisfactory experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, staying on schedule and within budget. Generally has an acceptable overall past performance based on Past Performance Questionnaires.

Marginal Response demonstrates generally poor overall experience performing historical projects and does not exhibit experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, staying on schedule and within budget.

Generally, marginal overall performance based on Past Performance Questionnaires.

Unacceptable Response demonstrates generally an unsatisfactory overall experience performing historical projects and does not exhibit experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, staying on schedule and within budget. Generally has an unacceptable overall past performance based on Past Performance Questionnaires.

Neutral The Neutral rating is to be assigned if the Offeror has no relevant record of past performance. The Offeror will not be rated favorably or unfavorably.

Figure 4: Past Performance Quality Rating Method

Neutral Rating Offerors that have no record of past performance (i.e., new businesses) must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect. If an offer submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the Offeror’s past performance, that Offeror will receive a neutral rating (i.e., the Offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance. A prime or significant subcontractor that does not provide any contract reference information will receive a neutral rating for past performance. Furthermore, if Offerors (prime and significant subcontractors) provide contract reference information that is not relevant and current as defined in Section L, the Offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating for those contracts.

Other Information Sources The Government may solicit information from an Offeror’s customers and business associates; Federal, state and local Government agencies; and from other persons and organizations. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror.

Performance Confidence Assessment The Government will review and assess past performance information to determine its recency, relevance and quality in order to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Each Offeror will be assigned one rating from table below.

Performance Confidence Assessments Adjectival Rating Description 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 Based on the Offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

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.

Figure 5: Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Factor 4: CyberSecurity

• Chief Engineer (CE) Key Personnel Acts as lead engineer for entire system; responsible for engineering analysis and trades made at the system level; works with system security engineer on integrating security into overall engineering efforts. Will represent the company with engineering products and solutions. The person proposed shall have ten (10) years’ experience in the Electrical/Mechanical engineering field, including five (5) years in the functional area of the project to be managed. The person proposed shall have a Bachelor’s degree in engineering from an accredited university or college.

Must have experience with complex electrical/electronic systems to include System Analysis, Systems Architecture, Systems / Equipment Support, Test and Evaluation and Logistics support of Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR). Professional Engineering (P.E.) registration required. IAM III is required in compliance with DoD 8570.01-M.

• System Integrator (SI) Key Personnel

The SI should understand relevant threats and be able to assess mission needs and capability gaps against likely adversary threat capabilities. Development will be conducted in accordance with security controls related to assurance, system development, and security best practices to reduce vulnerabilities and to design, build, and test security in the system early and cost effectively. Will provide software development, specification and requirements for the Operational Technology (OT) Systems. The person proposed shall have five (5) years’ experience in the field of Software systems. The proposed candidate shall have a BS degree in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Management Information Systems, Information Systems, Information Technology, or Mathematics (BS not BA); working towards the following certifications within one and a half year of assuming duties: Certified Software Development Professional (CSDP) (Previously known as Certified Software Engineering Professional (CSEP)), or with COR approval complete a vendor/platform specific certification (e.g., Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer (MCSD), Microsoft Certified Applications Developer (MCAD), Microsoft Certified Database Administrator (MCDBA), Sun Certified Professional (SCP), Red Hat Certification Program (RHCP), CISCO Certified Network Professional (CCNP), Oracle Certified Professional (OCP), other). Experience: Six (6) years of experience with complex software systems, to include: Systems Analysis, Systems Architecture, Systems/Equipment Support, Test and Evaluation, and Logistics support of C4ISR requirements.

Specific experience: Five (5) years of experience in Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) development. IASAE III is required in compliance with DoD 8570.01-M.

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s proposed personnel for Chief Engineer and System Integrator. The Offeror’s proposed personnel must:

• Demonstrate the ability to meet the PWS Personal Security Requirements (PWS Appendix B, #3) and Citizenship for all personnel proposed for the contract

• Demonstrating the knowledge and experience with performing the cybersecurity functions described in the PWS (PWS Appendix B)

• Provide information for Cyber Security requirements listed in the PWS as a demonstration of security planning for the applicable system. The explanation should include experience and knowledge of the supporting documentation such as Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Secure Technical Implementation Guides, National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-30, National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-37, National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-39, National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-53, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Special Publication 800-82 Revision 2, DoD Instruction 8500.01 and DoD Instruction 8510.01.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method will be used to determine qualified Offerors

CyberSecurity Rating Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Figure 6: CyberSecurity Rating Method

Price A Price Proposal shall be submitted in accordance with instructions set forth in this solicitation.

Evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal shall 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 office, Defense Contract Management Agency, 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.

Price Reasonableness Proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Price evaluation will be based on the total cost offered for all lots. Each lot consists of the total cost for material, labor, overhead, general and administrative expenses, miscellaneous subcontracting, travel/per diem, contract data and any miscellaneous cost items. Labor will be evaluated by multiplying the labor rate times the estimated annual hours as set forth in the Pricing Model attached to the solicitation. The other direct cost, i.e., miscellaneous subcontracting, travel/per diem, material, others will be evaluated by ADDING the proposed loading factors such as general and administrative (G&A), material handling, other costs, to the Government’s estimates specified in the Pricing Model.