52.217-9_and_52.212-2.pdf

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

52.217-9 – OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000)

(a) The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 30 days before contract expires; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 60 days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.

(b) If the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option clause.

(c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 234 months.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTOR FOR AWARD

52.212-2 EVALUATION COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) Basis for Award. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government. Formal source selection procedures will be used for this procurement. As such this is a best value acquisition, employing a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable process in accordance with FAR 15.101-2. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(i) Factor 1-Technical/Management

(1) Staffing

(2) Operations

(3) Maintenance

(4) Safety

(5) Security

(6) Environmental

(7) Training

(8) Furnished Items

(ii) Factor 2-Past Performance

(iii) Factor 3- Price.

Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation should be prepared in accordance with the ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018) provision, and will be evaluated by a board of one or more Government personnel. The Source Selection Authority shall make a final selection based on each offeror’s ability to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation.

Evaluation Process:

There are three (3) evaluation factors: Factor 1-Technical/Management, Factor 2-Past Performance, and Factor 3- Price. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (Contract Team) will evaluate the Past Performance factor on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis and also evaluate the Price to support the selection of the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable offer.

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated against the Government’s requirements as stated in the solicitation and the PWS to determine whether the proposal is Acceptable or Unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated April 1, 2016, Table A-1.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT (SEE ATTACHMENT A)

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) (Technical Team) will evaluate the Technical/Management factor on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis (See Table A-1). For purposes of this solicitation, Factor 1, Technical/Management and Factor 2, Past Performance are hereby combined to determine technical acceptability.

The SSEB technical team members will evaluate each offer based upon the offeror’s understanding of and capability to accomplish the work as stated in the solicitation. The offeror must demonstrate in its proposal a complete understanding of the Performance Work Statement provided in the solicitation. The technical proposal and the stated evaluation criteria are the sole basis on which the Government will evaluate the technical merits of what is offered, how the offeror’s claims of performance capacity are supported, and the ability of the offeror to perform in accordance with the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.

Within this factor, there are eight (8) sub-factors. The ratings are established in accordance with Clause FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014) and DLA Energy Contract Provision M-0001- M72-EVALUATION OF OFFERS (EXCEPTIONS/DEVIATIONS) (DLA Energy, APR 1997). All eight (8) sub-factors are equal in importance to each other. Each Technical/Management sub-factor will be rated either Acceptable or Unacceptable. After all sub-factors have been rated, an overall Technical/Management rating will be assigned to the proposals to assure technical capability.

Table A-1

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Note: Any offeror who receives an overall Technical/Management rating of Unacceptable after final proposal revisions will not be eligible for an award.

To be rated as Acceptable overall, the proposal must rate Acceptable in all sub-factors. The sub-factors under Factor 1 – Technical/Management (Table A-1.1) to be addressed in the Technical Proposal are as follows:

Table A-1.1

For purposes of this evaluation the following terms will have the following definitions:

IAW FAR 15.001 - Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

IAW FAR 15.001 - Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

SUB-FACTORS ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE

1. Staffing

2. Operations

3. Maintenance

4. Safety

5. Security

6. Environmental

7. Training

8. Furnished Items

OVERALL RATING

IAW FAR 15.001 - Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Technical/Management

All sub-factors will initially be evaluated using the ratings description below. After all sub-factors have been rated, an overall proposal rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be given.

Sub-factor 1: Staffing - Technical, managerial, and operational details of manpower related issues to meet mission requirements. The proposal must provide a staffing approach which demonstrates understanding of the personnel requirements to successfully accomplish all PWS tasks. The proposal must provide a staffing plan that includes a comprehensive and detailed matrix outlining all manning aspects, to include sub-contracting, and requirements regarding the management and labor force. The plan shall include a detailed organization chart reflecting the number of employees identified by wage determination, job classification, and full/part time employee status, a brief description of the tasks to be performed, and the duty description. In addition, a manning matrix defining manning in terms of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for a typical seven day work week shall be included. The staffing plan matrix shall identify manning by positions and shifts to perform all required tasks and cover required hours of operation for normal daily operations. The proposal must identify all required personnel positions and qualifications.

The proposal must address requirements to respond to surge or contingency operations to ensure no mission delay or failure. The proposal must address any manpower issues such as compliance with Service specific requirements.

Sub-factor 2: Operations - Technical, managerial, and operational details of supporting normal and contingency operations to meet mission requirements. The proposal must provide a concept of operations that demonstrates knowledge of product receipt, storage, issue, and transfer functions and should ensure requirements for normal daily operations are met. The proposal must address response to contingency and extended operations. The proposal must address procedures to maintain accountability and quality of DWCF product ensuring compliance with DLA Energy Policies.

Sub-factor 3: Maintenance - Technical, managerial, and operational details of maintaining operational capability of facilities, vehicles, and equipment to meet mission requirements. The proposal must demonstrate understanding of planning, conducting, monitoring, and documenting operator, preventive, and other maintenance of systems, equipment, buildings, and grounds as required and in accordance with regulations and best commercial practices.

Sub-factor 4: Safety - Technical, managerial, and operational details incorporating federal, state, and local laws and regulations to ensure safe working environment. The proposal must provide a safety plan and procedures to be implemented to ensure all operations are conducted in accordance with federal, state, and local safety laws, regulations, and best commercial practices. The proposal must demonstrate knowledge and understanding of safety issues and specifically address hazards of products, lockout/tagout procedures, and confined space work rules.

Sub-factor 5: Security - Technical, managerial, and operational details of meeting physical, information, and personnel security requirements. The proposal must provide procedures to be implemented to ensure all aspects of security are maintained. The proposal must indicate a good knowledge of security performance requirements and must specifically address key control, visitor access control, Force Protection condition requirements, contractor personnel security/background checks, and protection of government computer systems and information.

Sub-factor 6: Environmental - Technical, managerial, and operational details of planning and conducting operations in compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The proposal must provide environmental performance requirements details and must specifically address spill prevention and response pertaining to fuel receipt, storage, and issue operations to ensure strict compliance with all applicable base, local, state, and federal environmental laws, regulations, and plans.

Sub-factor 7: Training - Technical, managerial, and operational details to ensure contractor personnel have requisite skills and associated training to accomplish all government requirements. The proposal must provide procedures to be implemented to ensure all contractor personnel are qualified and certified to accomplish all required tasks. The proposal must identify required courses and frequencies for maintaining personnel competence and method of documentation and certification. The proposal must also address the requirements for providing training to government personnel.

Sub-factor 8: Furnished Items - Technical, managerial, and operational details of providing and maintaining Contractor furnished items to support normal and contingency operations to meet mission requirements. The proposal must identify any Contractor furnished vehicles, equipment, and supplies for use in performing operations.

The proposal must also identify any Contractor furnished safety items such as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) or confined space equipment. The proposal should address quantity, condition, age, capabilities, maintenance, and/or replacement of contractor-furnished items to ensure sufficient support is continually provided. The proposal should address appropriate documentation and handling requirements for items operated and maintained by the contractor.

Negotiations will be held with those offerors determined to be within the competitive range. Questions and/or comments will be addressed during negotiations. The offeror must provide additional written details for any questions and/or exceptions by the date set for submission of the Final Proposal Revision.

*Note: Any offeror who receives an overall Technical/Management rating of Unacceptable after final proposal revisions will not be eligible for an award.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Source Selection Evaluation Board Contract Team will review recent and relevant past performance information and determine its quality and usefulness as it applies to the procurement. Past Performance will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Offerors are instructed to submit three (3) Past Performance Questionnaires that may include the performance still in progress, however, it should have a minimum of one (1) year of performance history and no be more than three (3) years old from the closing date of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s submitted past performance to include questionnaire from three (3) current or previous contracts for relevancy based on how well the contractor performed on projects of similar dollar value, scope, and complexity. The Past Performance questionnaire located under Attachment III of this solicitation will be used to solicit information from Offeror’s submitted references in the following areas: (1) Quality (2) Schedule (3) Cost Control (4) Management of Key Personnel, (5) Small Business (if applicable), (6) Regulatory Compliance, and (7) Other Areas.

Additionally, the Government may use any other data available to its evaluators, including but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Retrieval System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, the Defense Contract Management Agency, past and present customers and their employees, other subcontractors, and any others who may have useful and relevant information.

Recency and Relevancy are evaluated as part of the Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings. Recent past performance is defined as past performance on contracts performed within the past three years. The evaluation will determine the degree to which a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is relevant to the effort to be acquired through this acquisition. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration shall 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. This relevancy assessment shall measure the extent of similarity between the service effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming arrangements, and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. Upon determining how recent past performance was, relevancy, and how well the offeror performed, past performance will be rated “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated April 1, 2016, Table A-2 as follows:

Table A-2

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note 1: The adjectival ratings Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unacceptable reflect the ratings in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). However, under the DOD’s streamlined process for evaluating Past Performance under Lowest Price Technically Acceptable, ratings of Acceptable and Unacceptable must be used. The contracting officer has reviewed the CPARS rating standards at https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/CPARSQualityChecklist.pdf and the Contractor Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment III, and determined that CPARS and Questionnaire ratings of Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory and Marginal will equate to an Acceptable rating. Ratings of Unsatisfactory will equate to an Unacceptable rating.

A record of poor performance may be considered an indication that the offeror has failed to conform to contract requirements and/or to standards of good workmanship; adhere to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; provide reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction;

and/or display a business-like concern for the interests of the customer. Offerors are advised that the Government may use past performance information obtained from centralized past performance databases and sources other than those identified by the offeror.

Note 2: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have Unknown (or Neutral) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a Neutral rating shall be considered “Acceptable”.

Evaluation for Joint Ventures and Teaming Arrangements will be performed by evaluating the performance of each partner in accordance with the procedures outlined above. The ratings for each partner will be combined and the Joint Venture or Teaming Arrangement will receive one rating. As a Joint Venture, each partner’s experience and past performance may be evaluated and weighted against their respective roles identified in the Joint Venture agreement. This evaluation may be combined for a final past performance rating.

Note 3: A proposal receiving a rating of Unacceptable in this factor after final proposal revisions will be ineligible for award.

https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/CPARSQualityChecklist.pdf

FACTOR 3: PRICE

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract will result from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes IAW FAR 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items (Oct 2014) as follows:

1. A total Monthly Use Charge (M1NA) price offered for Base period years 1-4 (Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 0001) will be multiplied by 48 months to determine the total price for this performance period. The total M1GC price for the option period years 5-9 (CLIN 0002) will be multiplied by 60 months to determine the total price for this performance period. The total M1NA price for the option period years 10-14 (CLIN 0003) will be multiplied by 60 months to determine the total price for this performance period. The total M1NA price for the option period years 15-18 and 6 months (CLIN 0004) will be multiplied by 54 months to determine the total price for this performance period. The sum of the total base period price, total option periods price and the 52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES price, which is calculated by multiplying CLIN 0004 by six months, will be the offeror’s total evaluated price.

2. Option (Extension Provision) price: In accordance with FAR 52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES (NOV 1999), the Government has the unilateral right to extend any resulting contract under the same terms and conditions for a total of not more than six months. To account for the option period (s) possible under 52.217-8 (maximum of six months), the Government will evaluate the option to extend by adding six months of the Offeror’s option period price (CLIN 0004) to the Offeror’s total price.

3. Option exercise: In accordance with FAR 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000), the Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within thirty

(30) days; provided the Government gives the contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least sixty (60) days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.

If the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option clause.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis to determine whether the offeror understands the contract requirements. If a price realism analysis is performed and an offeror’s price is determined to be unrealistic, the offeror’s proposal will be ineligible for award.

To be rated as Acceptable overall, the proposal must rate Acceptable in all sub-factors. The sub-factors under Factor 1 – Technical/Management (Table A-1.1) to be addressed in the Technical Proposal are as follows: