SP4702-22-R-0002 0003 Attachment 2 - Section M.pdf

FUEL DEPOT SYSTEM (FDS) – ASSET VISIBILITIY (AV)

SECTION M SP4702-22-R-0002

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Controlled Unclassified Information – Source Selection Sensitive See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

BASIS FOR AWARD

The award shall be made to the responsible firm, whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government, technical approach, past performance, cyber security, 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 a best value trade-off source selection process. Offerors are advised that a proposal meeting the Government’s 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 for non-price factors, 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 Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government will evaluate the submissions based on 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 evaluated marginal or better in all evaluation factors 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 at Section 2.1. Evaluation factors (other than price) are significantly more important than price; however, 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 equality among offerors of their individual proposals. Accordingly, when Offerors are considered essentially equal in terms of the non-price evaluation factors, price will become the major factor for determining the award. The Government reserves the right to award to a lower cost Offeror when the offers are considered essentially equal in terms of non-price 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 discussions.

Proposals should contain the firm’s best terms within the proposed technical and business approach and should address all evaluation factors. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to conduct

Controlled Unclassified Information – Source Selection Sensitive See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 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 Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(c)).

No Award:

The Government reserves the right to not make an award based on 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 (FFP), Indefinite- Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract to the Offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and is considered to represent the best value to the Government.

PROPOSAL AND EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Evaluation

Subfactor A: Technical Approach of the Solution and Key Personnel Qualifications Subfactor B: Management Approach Subfactor C: Solution Demonstration

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cyber Security Factor 4: Price

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The above evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Under Factor 1, Subfactors A, B, and C are of equal importance and are used to develop the overall rating for Factor 1.All non-price evaluation factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4, price. As the non-price factor 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 if the Government deems if appropriate.

Note: If a proposal receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the Non-price Factors or Subfactors, the entire proposal will be 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 Task Order. If needed the Government may enter 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 Factor 1 (including the three subfactors), Factors 2, and 3.

Factor 1: Technical Evaluation

• Subfactor A: Technical Approach of the Solution and Key Personnel Qualifications

The Offeror’s proposed approach shall be evaluated to ensure it addresses all requirements of the solicitation, addresses any challenges, and demonstrates a clear understanding of the FDS AV as described in both the solicitation and the PWS. The evaluation of the technical approach will ensure that the proposal identifies how risks to schedule and/or performance will be mitigated.

• The technical approach will be evaluating an Offeror’s proposal to the extent it demonstrates a system engineering approach that complies with the terms of the solicitation and the PWS.

Specifically, the following aspects of the offers technical approach will be evaluated. Quality Control Plan: Describes methods and procedures for adhering to a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP); plans and procedures to meet and comply with the quality standards established in the PWS; the Offeror’s self-inspection plan; internal staffing plan; procedures to maintain quality, timeliness, and responsiveness and customer satisfaction for the entire effort

• Software Development/Configuration Approach: Identifies a clear and effective process for properly documenting, configuring, and managing all development/configuration

• Software Sustainment Approach: The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror's proposed management approach, including plans for program; quality; security; risk; and personnel management that will be used to ensure the successful sustainment of the resultant contract.

Sustainment Plan: Address periodic maintenance, repair, replacement, and overhaul of existing systems, hardware, and software inclusive of Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts (IAVA)Patching. Identify position qualified personnel, test equipment, etc. needed to quickly diagnose and effect repairs. The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s Key Personnel resumes proposed for those resources listed as Key Personnel in the PWS: Program Manager, Senior Software Engineer, Software Engineer, Cloud Architect II, and Operations Manager, and Cyber Security Specialist. The resumes of Key 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.

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 Key Personnel performance on other contracts identified by the Offeror in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to use other available information to evaluate Key Personnel. The Government may query contract references and other end user representatives regarding Key Personnel experience and quality of experience and performance. The Offeror must provide, along with resumes, Letters of Intent (LOI)/Letters of Commitment (LOC) confirming Key Personnel selection and availability immediately on contract award. The Offeror must ensure that all Key Personnel are eligible to obtain a Common Access Card (CAC). CAC procedures are described in PWS. This includes those individuals currently holding dual citizenship.

The Offeror shall be assigned one rating from the following for its Technical Approach of the Solution and Key Personnel Qualifications:

Adjectival Rating for Subfactor A

Adjectival Rating

Description

Outstanding

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

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

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is ineligible for award.

• Subfactor B: Management Approach

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s Program Management Approach and Capabilities to assess the Offeror’s plans for strategy and management organization structure for the effective and efficient management of contract activities to successfully fulfill the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror’s approach shall address all aspects of Program Management found within the PWS.

The Government will review and evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed Program Management Approach, including plans for program, quality, security, risk, and personnel management ensures the successful execution for the resultant contract.

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

• Plan for managing the FDS AV effort from a program perspective, including both information technology management and program support activities to include communication and interaction with FDS Program Management Office (PMO), relevant stakeholders, the DLA Contracting Services Office-Columbus (DCSO-C) Contracting Officer, contract administration and staffs.

• Risk Management Plan that identifies how the Offeror will proactively track, identify, and mitigate risks throughout the life of the proposed effort and how risks will be communicated to appropriate FDS AV program personnel

• Proposed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) to determine:

o Inclusion of significant milestones, design, development, testing, deployment, and installation related activities o Inclusion of activities related to cybersecurity compliance for certification and accreditation in the production environment o Provision of a comprehensive, implementable timeline that aligns with the approach in the technical proposal

• Plan for personnel management including program specific training; continuity and succession management of proposed personnel labor mix; the organizational structure and the use of proposed team members and subcontractors in support of this effort

• Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for assigning resources to the proposed effort. The WBS shall describe how the labor categories and hours proposed for each task are sufficient to meet the PWS requirements

• Plan to support and manage Department of Defense (DoD) cyber security requirements on an ongoing basis; physical security and personnel security including a clear description of the Offeror’s security program and structure; how security fits into the overall management plan and structure; responsibilities of personnel; and how the security plan and personnel will operate/interact with the Government security team Communication plan that outlines the method of providing communication to DLA program staff, management, customers, and users; addresses the Offeror’s understanding of the importance of communications; and how changes will be communicated

The Offeror shall be assigned one rating from the following for its Management Approach:

Adjectival Rating for Subfactor B one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful

• Subfactor C: Solution Demonstration

The Solution Demonstration will be evaluated in two steps and the Offeror will be assigned an adjectival rating based on result of the demonstration.

The Offeror’s demonstration will be evaluated on its performance utilizing a Production Representative system that accurately represents the production configuration for application hardware and software.

This includes all applicable Operating System and Application Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) applied. The Offeror will be evaluated on how it presents, during the demonstration, evidence of system configuration verifying the security posture of the representative environment. This may be accomplished in the form of system scan results or STIG checklist. In addition to system verification documentation, the Offeror must also provide a High-Level Operational Concept Graphic (OV-1) detailing the architecture for the solution being proposed. The OV-1 must indicate a clear understanding of Government Cloud requirements.

The Government intends to only conduct one round of the solution demonstration. The Government reserves the right to exclude offerors from the competitive range based on the results of the first round of solution demonstration. The Government reserves the right to conduct a second-round solution demonstration in the event that the competitive range would otherwise be reduced to too few offerors to allow for effective competition. While strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties may be identified by the Government regarding the Solution Demonstration, if the weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties cannot be easily remedied via a written narrative, all remaining deficiencies will render the proposal as “Unacceptable” and therefore not eligible for award.

Step 1: The Government will assess whether an Offeror’s Solution Demonstration is deemed compliant with the instructions and presents a demonstration that is “materially the same” as their proposed Technical Approach. The Offeror shall be assigned one rating from the following:

The Government defines “materially the same” as using the same “approach” and technologies to address Solution Demonstration scenarios as the approach and technologies provided in the corresponding areas in the submitted Technical Approach.

Further, the Government defines “approach” as the Offeror’s solution architecture and the technologies that consist of demonstrated commercial and developed software.

Solution Demonstration Step 1 Ratings

Color/Adjectival

Rating

The Offeror’s Solution Demonstration is deemed complaint with Section L and the Solution Demonstration instructions which uses concepts or technologies that are “materially the same” as its proposed Technical Approach.

Move to Step 2 Scenarios

The Offeror’s Solution Demonstration is deemed not complaint with Section L and the Solution Demonstration instruction which introduces concepts or technologies that are not “materially the same” as its proposed Technical Approach. Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies (fails).

Figure 1: Solution Demonstration Step 1 Ratings

Step 2: If the Offeror’s Solution Demonstration is evaluated materially the same, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s solution demonstration of the following capability scenarios outlined in the PWS:

1. Create, edit, and delete Individual Personnel records.

2. Create, edit, and delete Equipment and Tank individual records.

3. Create, edit, and delete Quality Data records.

4. Create, edit, delete, and execute transactional Queries and Reports.

5. Create, edit, and delete single and reoccurring appointments, maintenance and quality control schedules for personnel and equipment.

a. The scheduled events must interface with the Personnel, Equipment, and Material

Surveillance capability.

6. Demonstrate that the OV1 provided indicates an understanding of the cloud requirements for this acquisition.

7. Demonstrate the security posture of the environment and configuration of the environment.

8. Demonstrate the environment is representative of a production deployment.

9. Demonstrate the application of all relevant STIG’s to the vendors chosen environment and configuration.

The Offeror shall be assigned one rating from the following for each capability demonstrated:

Adjectival Rating for Step 2 Solution Demonstration

Proposal meets all nine of the requirements (bullets) of the Solution Demonstration.

Proposal meets at least seven of the requirements (bullets) of the Solution Demonstration.

Proposal meets at least five of the requirements (bullets) of the

Proposal meets at least one of the requirements (bullets) of the

Proposal does not meet requirements (bullets) of the Solution Demonstration, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is ineligible for award.

Figure 2: Subfactor C Capability Rating Method

An overall assessment of Subfactors A, B, & C will be utilized to arrive at an overall rating for Factor 1.

The overall rating of Factor 1 will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach meets all requirements, challenges and demonstrates a clear understanding of the FDS AV requirements as described in the PWS.

Factor 1 Ratings one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful

Figure 3: Factor 1 Capability Rating Method

3.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

The evaluation of an Offeror’s Past Performance will be based on both the overall confidence assessment derived from an evaluation of an Offeror’s submitted previous contracts, and an examination of other information obtained from Government and other systems including, but not limited to:

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPAR), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) and Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR). The confidence assessment is created by evaluating the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality of the submitted contracts. By considering each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, combined with how well the Offeror performed on the contracts, will demonstrate the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation’s requirements. In rating past performance, the following will be considered:

3.2.1 Recency of Prior Contracts

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is the time during which past performance references are considered relevant. Past performance that is or was completed in the last three (3) 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.

Figure 4: Past Performance Recency Rating Method

3.2.2 Relevancy 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

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 of this solicitation.

for the acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that will 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 most of the prior contracts provided are essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Figure 5: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

3.2.3 Quality of Previous Performance

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 Questionnaires and the Offeror’s proposal and may include the Government’s independent verification with Offeror’s prior customers or through past performance databases, including but not limited to, the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Additionally, the Government may use information from publicly available sources including, but not limited to, internet searches, and Dun & Bradstreet Reports.

If the Government’s information conflicts with assertions made in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be asked to clarify any discrepant information.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

Past Performance Quality Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition Outstanding Response demonstrates historical projects with outstanding experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, and staying on schedule and within budget. An outstanding overall past performance based on past performance information.

Good Response demonstrates historical projects with good experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, and staying on schedule and within budget. A good overall past performance based on past performance information.

Acceptable Response demonstrates historical projects with satisfactory experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, and staying on schedule and within budget. An acceptable overall past performance based on past performance information.

Marginal Response demonstrates poor overall experience performing historical projects and does not exhibit experience and history of either producing high quality reports, deliverables, or staying on schedule and within budget. Marginal overall performance based on past performance information.

Unacceptable Response demonstrates an unsatisfactory overall experience performing historical projects and does not exhibit experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, or staying on schedule and within budget. An unacceptable overall past performance based on past performance information.

Figure 6: Past Performance Quality Rating Method

3.2.4 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 as well as the right to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror.

3.2.5 Performance Confidence Assessment

An Offeror’s overall Past Performance rating will be derived from the Performance Confidence Assessment. In this assessment the Government will review and assess the results of the recency, relevancy, and quality evaluations in addition to examining the information listed in 3.2.4 to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Each Offeror will be assigned one rating from the 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.

Figure 7: Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

3.2.6 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 Offeror 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, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, the Offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating for those contracts.

3.3 Factor 3: Cyber Security

Cyber Security Specialist (CSS) Key Personnel: The Cyber Security Specialist shall manage all day-to-day cybersecurity operations including administrative functions, assessing risks, and identifying unstated assumptions. The Cyber Security Specialist shall possess either a 4-year Bachelor’s Degree with eight years’ experience, or fifteen years of relevant/specialized experience in computer science, computer engineering, advanced analytics, applied mathematics, physics, or related field. The Governments preference would be a degree in computer science, computer engineering, advanced analytics, applied mathematics, or physics. Requires minimum of 8 years of relevant experience.

Minimum certification required is Certified Information System Security Professional (CISSP).

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s proposed personnel for the proposed CSS. The Offeror’s proposed personnel must:

• Demonstrate the ability to meet the PWS Personal Security Requirements and Citizenship for all personnel proposed for the contract

• Demonstrating the knowledge and experience with performing the cyber security functions described in the PWS section 2.7.10

• Provide information for Cyber Security requirements listed in the PWS section 2.7.10 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 (NIST) Special Publication 800-30, NIST Special Publication 800-37, NIST Special Publication 800-39, NIST Special Publication 800-53, NIST Special Publication 800-82 Revision 2, DoD Instruction 8500.01 and 8510.01.

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

Cyber Security Rating

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

Figure 8: Cyber Security Rating Method

3.4 Factor 4: 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, but not limited to, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), other contracts with the same firms for similar items or services, known commercial sources such as Global Insight Inc. (formally Data Resources, Inc.), Standard and Poor Index.

3.4.1 Price Reasonableness

Proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness. If price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional pricing information will be requested by the Government in accordance with Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.403-5. Price evaluation will be based on the total price offered for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). If necessary, an informal breakdown will be required at the CLIN level to include by not limited to; material, labor, overhead, general and administrative expenses, miscellaneous subcontracting, travel/per diem, contract data and any miscellaneous cost items.