Attachment 3 SP470623R0005 Section M Am2.pdf

Section M AFSI Solicitation SP4706-23-R-0005, Basic Contract (AFSI MATOC)

ATG-R Solicitation SP4706-24-R-0003, (Task Order) Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR AWARD

A contract award and task order award will be made to the responsible firm(s) whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government. 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. 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 Statements, for both the Automated Fuel Systems Installation (AFSI) Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) successor PWS and the Automatic Tank Gauge Replacement (ATG-R) PWS. The proposal(s) 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 requirement listed in the PWS. The Government will evaluate the submissions based on the material presented in the written proposals, including any proposed alternative performance standards and percentage disincentives.

The AFSI MATOC contract(s) resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the Offeror(s) 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 receiving the highest technical rating but will be awarded solely on the basis of capabilities/non-price factors. An offer must be acceptable for the Offeror to be eligible for award.

Additionally, one Offeror will be awarded the Automatic Tank Gauge Replacement (ATG-R) Task Order award, on the basis of best value/trade-off source selection process. For the ATG-R Task Order, firms 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. As stated below, the ATG- R Task Order will be a best value/trade-off source selection process.

Evaluation for the AFSI MATOC must be found Acceptable before advancing to the Automatic Tank Gauge Replacement (ATG-R) technical proposal evaluation process.

OFFERS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS STATED HEREIN MAY BE

DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY BE REJECTED WITHOUT FURTHER EVALUATION. IF

THAT OCCURS, THE PROPSOAL WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE ATG-R TASK ORDER.

AN OFFEROR MUST PROPOSE ON BOTH, THE MATOC AND THE ATG-R SOLICITATIONS, BUT THE

MATOC SOLICITATION WILL BE EVLAUATED FIRST, THEN THE ATG-R WILL BE EVALUATED

BASED ON THE PROPOSALS DEEMED ACCEPTABLE FOR THE MATOC SOLICITATION.

Award Without Discussion

The Government may 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. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be necessary.

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.

SECTION M CONTINUED

AFSI Solicitation SP4706-23-R-0005, Basic Contract and Task Order

ATG-R Solicitation SP4706-24-R-0003

PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS – AFSI MATOC

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors are listed below:

Factor 1: Technical Approach

Subfactor 1A: Project Management Approach

Subfactor 1B: Key Personnel Qualifications

Subfactor 1C: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)

Implementation and Integration Plan Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate proposals using the Factors and subfactors listed above.

Factor 1, Technical Approach is more important than Factor 2, Past Performance.

Under Factor 1: Subfactor 1B is less important than Subfactors 1A and 1C and all Subfactors will be used to develop the overall rating for Factor 1.

The Government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality supplies and services considered necessary to achieve the required objectives of each future task order. If needed the Government may enter discussions with all Offeror(s) to determine if an Offeror fully understands the requirement.

Note 1: An Offeror must propose on both the MATOC and the ATG-R solicitations, but the MATOC solicitation will be evaluated first, then the ATG-R will be evaluated based on the proposals deemed technically acceptable for the MATOC solicitation.

Note 2: A proposal that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the Non-Price Factors for the MATOC or Subfactors will result in the entire proposal being determined "Unacceptable" and will be ineligible for award, and therefore will not be reviewed for the ATG-R solicitation.

Note 3: A proposal that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the Non-Price Factors for the ATG-R or Subfactors will not be eligible for an award on the MATOC.

DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The Government intends to award multiple AFSI MATOC IDIQ contracts and one ATG-Replacement Task Order award; to the offeror(s) who submit qualifying proposal(s) which are determined to be the best value to the Government. To be determined a potential awardee, the offeror’s proposal must receive, at a minimum, an acceptable for all evaluation factors. The Government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality services and supplies considered necessary to achieve the stated objectives of this acquisition. The award(s) will be made to the company(ies) whose proposal(s) are determined to be the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced proposal or the highest rated (lowest risk) offer, if deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

ATG-R Solicitation SP4706-24-R-0003 Factor 1: Technical Approach for AFSI MATOC

The 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 requirement listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government will evaluate the submissions based on the material presented in the written proposals, including any proposed alternative performance standards and percentage disincentives.

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 systems processes.

• Demonstrates an understanding of automated fuel systems concept of operations.

Each factor 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 AFSI 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 table below provides the ratings descriptions for Subfactor 1A, 1B and 1C.

Table 1: Factor 1: Subfactor 1A, 1B and 1C Ratings for AFSI MATOC 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, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Subfactor 1A: Project Management Approach for AFSI MATOC

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 tasks to successfully fulfill the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror’s approach shall address all aspects of the Project Management section found within the PWS. The Government will review and evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed Project Management Approach, including plans for program, quality, security, risk, and personnel management ensure successful execution for the resultant contract.

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

ATG-R Solicitation SP4706-24-R-0003

• Plan for managing the effort from a program perspective, including both information technology management and program support activities to include communication and interaction with the PMO, Governance Boards, Contracting Officer/Specialists, and functional requirements staff.

• 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 AFSI program personnel.

• Plan for personal 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.

Subfactor 1B: Key Personnel Qualifications for AFSI MATOC

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. The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s resumes proposed for: Project Manager, Senior Security System Engineer (SSE) Level 2 and Senior Electrical/Electronic Engineer Level 3). 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 below.

Project Manager

The Project Manager is responsible for planning and executing major portions of the project.

Prepares and maintains the project scope, schedule, and budget. Primary point of contact for the customer on assigned tasks. Oversees all work and takes corrective action as necessary to ensure success of assigned tasks. Manages staffing, budget, prioritization, and other personnel matters. May serve as technical lead for assigned tasks. Experience with Government or industry processes, procedures, standards, methodologies, or tools as relative to the assignment. A minimum of eight (8) years of experience in the project management field to include five (5) years of experience with commercial or government fuel terminal/pipeline operations or projects. Management experience also includes design, installation, logistics, and technical support of large, complex integrated electronic/electrical/mechanical systems.

Bachelor’s degree from an accredited university/college or 8 years of direct work experience.

PMP certification preferred.

Senior Security System Engineer (SSE) Level 2:

The Senior SSE is responsible for the design, development, implementation, and/or integration of a DOD CS architecture, system, or system component for use within CE (computing environment), NE (network environment), and/or enclave environments. Must meet the Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 8140.01, “Cyberspace Workforce Management” and DOD 8570-M “Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program”

IASAE

(Information Assurance System Architect and Engineer) Level 2. Five (5) years of experience with complex software systems, to include: Systems Analysis, Systems Architecture, Systems/Equipment Support, Test and Evaluation, and Logistics support.

Specific experience: Five (5) years of experience in Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) development.

ATG-R Solicitation SP4706-24-R-0003 Senior Electrical/Electronic Engineer Level 3:

The Senior Electrical/Electronic Engineer 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 of technical experience designing electronic and electrical system for hazardous areas and automation systems associated with bulk fuel delivery and storage systems. Must have significant experience with complex electrical/electronic systems to include System Analysis, Systems Architecture, Systems/Equipment Support, and Test, Evaluation, and Logistics support. Must be registered as or hold a license as a Professional Engineering (P.E.). A P.E. has the authority to sign off or stamp a design or a structure.

Note: All requirements for Key Personnel must be met as written.

Subfactor 1C: SCADA Implementation and Integration Plan Approach for AFSI MATOC

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

• Describes methods, procedures, and personnel for system administration needed to develop an AFHE Production Baseline

• Describes methods, procedures, and personnel for back-end development of the AFHE Production Baseline

• Describes methods, procedures, and personnel for front-end development of the AFHE Production Baseline

• Describes methods, procedures, and personnel for application development, testing and evaluation, troubleshooting, installation, and configuration required to complete the AFHE Production Baseline

Factor 2: Past Performance for the AFSI MATOC

The Government will use information from several Government systems and Past Performance Questionnaire as part of the Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will review and assign a Past Performance rating, see Table 2, 3 and 4 below.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). All three aspects must be considered for each of the contracts or requirements evaluated.

Recency.

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 and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. The recency timeframe established should be based on the acquisition and the market/industry. For example, some efforts would require longer recency periods to avoid restricting competition simply due to the lack of item production.

Table 2: Past Performance Recency Rating Method for AFSI MATOC

Adjectival Rating Definition

Very Recent Presently performing work.

Recent Past performance within the past 3 years of this solicitation.

ATG-R Solicitation SP4706-24-R-0003

Relevance.

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what prior performance is relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include but are not limited to: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

Table 3: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method for AFSI MATOC

Adjectival Rating Description 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.

Quality of Performance (Products or Services).

The third aspect is to establish that the quality of the Offeror’s past performance meets an acceptable level. 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, see below. If the Government’s information conflicts with assertions made in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be asked to clarify this information.

Table 4: Quality of Performance for AFSI MATOC

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.

Somewhat Recent Past performance within the past 3 to 9 years of this solicitation.

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

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.

Table 5: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method for the AFSI MATOC

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 has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the

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.

Limited Confidence has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the

No Confidence has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Past Performance Questionnaire:

A Past Performance Questionnaire is provided as Attachment 3 in the solicitation. Offerors shall send copies to previous customers based on list of contracts submitted for the Past Performance Assessment in order to document past performance. The questionnaire shall be completed by the Offeror’s customers and emailed directly by those customers to both of the following Contracting personnel: Julie Miller (julie.miller@dla.mil) and Trevor Webb (trevor.webb@dla.mil).

Note: If the Offeror does not have any past performance, the Offeror shall provide an affirmative statement stating no past performance.

The Offeror shall list at least 3 and up to 5 contracts/Task Orders in progress or completed within the past five (5) years for work similar in size, scope, and complexity, specifically list work similar to the requirements outlined in the PWS; provided to either Government agencies or the private sector. The Offeror shall include the name, mailto:julie.miller@dla.mil mailto:trevor.webb@dla.mil

ATG-R Solicitation SP4706-24-R-0003 address, point of contact, current telephone number, e-mail address, dollar value, period of performance and a brief description of work. The Offeror shall discuss the similarities and differences between the proposed effort and contract being referenced. The proposal shall, at a minimum, include a narrative that describes the following for each contract cited:

1) Scale of prior work performed, and complexity of work are relevant to the requirements of the PWS.

2) Specify contracts for Government or private sector.

3) Describe any significant problems or issues that occurred during performance of the contract and how issues were resolved.

The Offeror shall ensure that information presented for contact points is accurate and current (i.e., current phone numbers, titles, etc.). The Government may or may not attempt to track down reference data in cases where inaccurate data is presented. Any past performance information presented by the Offeror that cannot be verified will not be evaluated.

3.2.4.1 Other Past Performance Assessments

In addition to the Offeror’s response to Factor 2, the Government will consider all past performance information within its purview and available from Government or public sources.

Past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

3.2.4.2 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 from Government or public sources, that Offeror will receive a neutral rating (i.e., the Offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance. Furthermore, if an Offeror provides contract reference information that is not relevant and current as defined in the Instructions to Offerors and there is no information available regarding the Offeror’s past performance from Government or public sources that is sufficient for the Government to rate the Offeror, the Offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating for those contracts. If the offeror fails to provide either contract references per the Instructions to Offerors or a certification of no past performance, the proposal will be non-responsive and no longer considered for award.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION FACTORS – ATG-R

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors are listed below:

Factor 1: Technical Approach

Subfactor 1A: Management Approach/Key Personnel Qualifications

Subfactor 1B: Installation Design Package (IDP) Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Small Business Participation

Factor 4: Price

ATG-R Solicitation SP4706-24-R-0003 Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate proposals using the factors and subfactors listed above. Factor 1, Technical Approach, is significantly more important than Factor 2, Past Performance, Factor 3, Small Business Participation, and Factor 4, Price. Under Factor 1: Sub factors 1A and 1B are of equal importance and both sub factors will be used to develop the overall rating for Factor 1.

The Government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality supplies and services considered necessary to achieve the required objectives of each future task order. If needed the Government may enter discussions with all Offeror(s) to determine if an Offeror fully understands the requirement.

Note 1: An Offeror must propose on both the MATOC and the ATG-R solicitations, but the MATOC solicitation will be evaluated first, then the ATG-R will be evaluated based on the proposals deemed technically acceptable for the MATOC solicitation.

Note 2: A proposal that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the Non-Price Factors for the MATOC or Subfactors will result in the entire proposal being determined "Unacceptable" and will be ineligible for award, and therefore will not be reviewed for the ATG-R solicitation.

Note 3: A proposal that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the Non-Price Factors for the ATG-R or Subfactors will not be eligible for an award on the MATOC.

DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS FOR ATG-R

The following locations will be part of the ATG-R TO: The Offeror shall use the requirements outlined in the ATG-R PWS, Multi-site ATG-R Task Order PWS and the Government provided PWS Enclosures listed below to respond to all Non-Price Factors.

Enclosure 1a - ATG-R Project Requirements Document Naval Air Station (NAS) JRB Fort Worth, TX

Enclosure 1b – ATG-R Site Survey for NAS JRB Fort Worth, TX

Enclosure 1c – Site Drawings for NAS JRB Fort Worth, TX

Enclosure 1d - PM Out brief Documents for NAS JRB Fort Worth, TX

Enclosure 2a - ATG-R Project Requirements Document Laughlin Air Force Base (AFB), TX

Enclosure 2b – ATG-R Site Survey for Laughlin AFB, TX

Enclosure 2c - Site Drawings for Laughlin AFB, TX

Enclosure 2d – PM Out brief Documents for Laughlin AFB, TX

Enclosure 3a - ATG-R Project Requirements Document Camp Shelby, MS

Enclosure 3b – ATG-R Site Survey for Camp Shelby, MS

Enclosure 3c - Site Drawings for Camp Shelby, MS

Enclosure 3d – PM Out brief Documents for Camp Shelby, MS

Enclosure 4a - ATG-R Project Requirements Document Cheyenne Air National Guard (ANG), WY

Enclosure 4b – ATG-R Site Survey for Cheyenne ANG, WY

Enclosure 4c - Site Drawings for Cheyenne ANG, WY

Enclosure 4d – PM Out brief Documents for Cheyenne ANG, WY

Enclosure 5a - ATG-R Project Requirements Document St. Paul ANG/AFRC, MN

Enclosure 5b – ATG-R Site Survey for St. Paul ANG/AFRC, MN

Enclosure 5c - Site Drawings for St. Paul ANG/AFRC, MN

Enclosure 5d – PM Out brief Documents for St. Paul ANG/AFRC, MN

Enclosure 6a - ATG-R Project Requirements Document Bradley Field, CT

Enclosure 6b – ATG-R Site Survey for Bradley Field, CT

Enclosure 6c - Site Drawings for Bradley Field, CT

Enclosure 6d – PM Out brief Documents for Bradley Field, CT

Enclosure 7a - ATG-R Project Requirements Document Davis Monthan AFB, AZ

Enclosure 7b – ATG-R Site Survey for Davis Monthan AFB, AZ

Enclosure 7c - Site Drawings for Davis Monthan AFB, AZ

Enclosure 7d – PM Out brief Documents for Davis Monthan AFB, AZ

Enclosure 8a - ATG-R Project Requirements Document Dobbins ARB, GA

Enclosure 8b – ATG-R Site Survey for Dobbins ARB, GA

Enclosure 8c - Site Drawings for Dobbins ARB, GA

Enclosure 8d – PM Out brief Documents for Dobbins ARB, GA

Enclosure 9a - ATG-R Project Requirements Document Fort McCoy, WI

Enclosure 9b – ATG-R Site Survey for Fort McCoy, WI

Enclosure 9c - Site Drawings for Fort McCoy, WI

Enclosure 9d – PM Out brief Documents for Fort McCoy, WI

Enclosure 10a - ATG-R Project Requirements Document NAS Whiting Field, FL

Enclosure 10b – ATG-R Site Survey for NAS Whiting Field, FL

Enclosure 10c - Site Drawings for NAS Whiting Field, FL

Enclosure 10d – PM Out brief Documents for NAS Whiting Field, FL

Enclosure 11a - ATG-R Project Requirements Document Truax Field, WI

Enclosure 11b – ATG-R Site Survey for Truax Field, WI

Enclosure 11c - Site Drawings for Truax Field, WI

Enclosure 11d – PM Out brief Documents for Truax Field, WI

Factor 1: Technical Approach for ATG-R

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 systems processes

ATG-R Solicitation SP4706-24-R-0003

• Demonstrates an understanding of automated fuel systems concept of operations

Each factor 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 Automated Tank Gauge Replacement 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 table below provides the ratings descriptions.

Table 7: ATG-R Technical Evaluation Ratings 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, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Subfactor 1A: Management Approach/Key Personnel Qualifications for ATG-R

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s 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 Offeror’s approach shall address all aspects of Project Management found within the PWS. The Government will review and evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed Project Management Approach, including plans for program, quality, security, risk, and personnel management ensure successful execution for the resultant task order.

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

• Plan for personnel management including staffing plan, to include proposed personnel labor categories, hours and labor mix, the organizational structure, and the use of proposed team members and subcontractors.

• Proposed Integrated Master Schedule to determine:

o Inclusion of significant milestones, design, development, testing, deployment, and installation related activities o Provision of a comprehensive, implementable timeline that aligns with the approach in the technical proposal.

o Completion of ATG-R shall be within 20 months (608 calendar days) after task order award;

where it is assumed the solicitation will be awarded in September 2024. If the solicitation is awarded sooner, the calendar days will be adjusted.

• Key Personnel: Project Manager o The Project Manager is responsible for planning and executing major portions of the project. Prepares and maintains the project scope, schedule, and budget. Primary point of contact for the customer on assigned tasks. Oversees all work and takes corrective action as

ATG-R Solicitation SP4706-24-R-0003 necessary to ensure success of assigned tasks. Manages staffing, budget, prioritization, and other personnel matters. May serve as technical lead for assigned tasks. Experience with Government or industry processes, procedures, standards, methodologies, or tools as relative to the assignment. A minimum of eight (8) years of experience in the project management field to include five (5) years of experience with commercial or government fuel terminal/pipeline operations or projects. Management experience also includes design, installation, logistics, and technical support of large, complex integrated electronic/electrical/mechanical systems. Bachelor’s degree from an accredited university or college. PMP certification preferred.

Subfactor 1B Installation Design Package (IDP) Approach for ATG-R

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s IDP approach to assess the Offeror’s specific plans to replace obsolete and failing ATG systems for each specific ATG-R location identified in the PWS. The Offeror’s proposal shall address all aspects of a total installation plan in detail for the locations identified within the PWS. The Government will review and evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed IDP demonstrates the following capabilities:

• Removing the existing tank gauges from the large Bulk Tanks and integrating to equivalent capability to ENRAF Servo gauging systems.

• Replacing the old gauging systems installed on smaller bulk tanks and at the service station(s) with a new automated gauging system which includes a Veeder Root Item #TLS-450 Plus ATG system or ATG System equivalent capability.

• Ensure the new gauging systems, tank fuel accountability and operational data will communicate with FMD software on the site’s operation Console. Contains logistic plans/procedures to ensure on-time delivery of equipment/materials to site’s operation Console.

The Government will also review Offeror’s submitted equipment and material lists, standard drawing list, references, legends, and general notes. Offeror will submit material lists in excel format with filters.

Factor 2: Past Performance for ATG-R

The Government will use information from the IDIQ to assess Past Performance.

Factor 3: Small Business Participation for ATG-R

Small Business Evaluation: All Offerors will be evaluated on the level of Small Business commitment that they demonstrate for the proposed acquisition. Proposals will be evaluated based on their proposed approach to meet the target % in the table below which represents the overall Small Business goals for FY24.

The below are required goals. These goals are based on a percentage of subcontracted dollars, not total contract value.

Small Business Participation goals will be as follow (for CONUS based work only):

Small Business Participation Overall Goal 18%

SDB 5%

WOSB 5%

SDVOSB 5%

HubZone 3%

Table 9. Small Business Rating Method

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Factor 4: Price for ATG-R

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. The quality of organization and attention to detail reflected in the business proposal will be an indication of the quality of organization and level of capability during contract performance.

Price Analysis

Price analysis will be completed to determine proposed prices are fair and reasonable. Price analysis will be conducted by reviewing the Total Evaluated Price of the Multi-site ATG-R task order.

The Offeror will propose a total firm-fixed price that will include all costs associated with meeting the Multi-site ATG-R task order requirement. A price analysis will be conducted by reviewing the offerors total proposed price and the offeror’s proposed unit/labor hour prices. Price analysis will be completed to determine proposed prices fair and reasonable.

Price Reasonableness

For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to the prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

Milestone Payment Plan

Evaluation of the proposed Milestone Payment Plan will consider the reasonableness of the pricing allocated to each milestone and determine if pricing is unbalanced.