EIM_INSTRUCTIONS_TO_OFFERORS.pdf

Solicitation No. W912DY-15-R-0372

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Energy Information Management (EIM) Program Wide Area Visualization Environment (WAVE)

The Government intends on awarding a firm-fixed price contract to a contractor to that will be require to supporting and assisting the Government with Systems Engineering; Interoperability Analysis and Requirements Definition; System Demonstrations, Operational Test and User Evaluations; Simulation and Support Software Development; and Computer Resource Support.

An Offerors proposal shall consist of four volumes. The Volumes are: I –Technical Capability and Experience, II – Management Approach, III – Past Performance, and IV – Price. Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

The proposal submission is limited to no more than 20 pages. The Government reserves the right to make a selection based upon initial submissions without discussions. The Government also reserves the right to make no award.

Questions may be submitted via email to only Phyllis.D.Watson@usace.army.mil, and:

Barbara.L.Osterkamp@usace.army.mil . The due date for questions is noon Central Time, Tuesday, September 8, 2015.

Proposal Format

The proposal should discuss in detail the work that will be performed as defined by the PWS. In addition, the proposal should include discussion on each of the evaluation factors. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Contents feature in MS Word. MS Word (.doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right - 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer - 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

The following additional restrictions apply: Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line.

A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size not less than 8-point and may be landscape.

The three adjectivally rated factors in their relative order of importance are:

• Factor 1- Technical Capability and Experience

• Factor 2- Management Approach

• Factor 3- Financial Capability

• Factor 4- Past Performance

Factor 5 is Price. Price is not adjectivally rated.

Their relative orders of importance are as follows:

1. Factor One is significantly more important than any other factor.

2. Factor One is slightly more important than Factors Two and Three combined.

mailto:Phyllis.D.Watson@usace.army.mil mailto:Barbara.L.Osterkamp@usace.army.mil

3. Factors Two and Three are of equal value, but each are slightly more important than Factor Four (Price).

4. Factors Two and Three combined are significantly more important than Factor Four (Price).

Format for the proposal shall be:

• Cover (not included in page count)

• Table of Contents (not included in page count)

• Volume 1 – Technical Capability and Experience

• Volume 2 – Management Approach

• Volume 3- Financial Capability

• Volume 4 – Past Performance

• Volume 5 – Price

Factor 1 Technical.

The Offeror should provide its best technical approach to accomplishing all work required in order to implement the project outlined in the attached PWS. The technical approach should demonstrate the Offerors thorough and complete understanding of all the requirements. It should be concise, as well as cover every aspect of the overarching work the Offeror will execute. Any innovative technical approach that would provide the Offeror an advantage in the determination should be identified. Any unique qualifications the Offeror possesses specific to the attached PWS should be included as well.

Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated on the breadth and depth of their technical knowledge and experience (including proposed key subcontractors) in performing the Government’s requirements as identified in the PWS. Breadth refers to the range and variety of requirements that the Offeror’s proposal has demonstrated technical knowledge and relevant experience to successfully perform the requirements of this contract. Depth refers to the demonstrated specialized knowledge, unique qualifications and amount of experience regarding particular requirements of this contract.

Corporate experience will be given more weight than individual resume experience. Both government and private sector contracts of same or similar products and services as described in the PWS will be considered. For a subcontractor’s corporate or individual experience to be considered, Offerors shall include letters of commitment unconditionally committing subcontractors to performance under this task order should it be awarded to the Offeror. Corporate experience of the prime Offeror will carry more weight in the evaluation process than experience of subcontractors.

Technical Solution and Demonstration

The following evaluation factors are based on the Enterprise Energy Information Management Capability Requirements Document (Public Release Version dated July 11, 2012) from the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installation & Environment) Business Enterprise Integration Directorate.

• Demonstrate an automated ability to collect asset management data and energy data in a correlate standardized framework

• Demonstrate that data is entered into the framework once and subsequently used many times in multiple locations, without diminished quality or additional workload

• Demonstrate a set of advanced analytic tools that can be provided to the individual authorized user to pinpoint anomalies, to track trends, to benchmark building, garrison, and installation and to identify and report effective savings opportunities.

• Provide a WAVE architecture design solution that will address a Defense-In-Depth solution, which will reduce the life cycle cost of ownership to a small garrison site.

• Demonstrate the ability to collect data in an automated and mobile fashion with a handheld device or tablet and move into a database in near real-time.

Volume 2 – Management Approach.

Offerors shall describe the proposed team structure and provide an organizational chart showing functional areas and personnel responsible for performing each function required in the PWS and reporting lines of authority. Offerors shall describe the relationship between the prime contractor and subcontractors; and the process for responding to and performing individual task orders.

Offerors should also address their general staffing approach, specifically addressing how they will respond to program growth, how multiple task orders will be managed simultaneously, key personnel replacements, subcontractor withdrawals or additions, and staffing updates, to the Government throughout the contract term.

Offerors' proposals will be evaluated on the clarity, efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed management approach to ensure timely successful performance. Elements include organizational structure, division of labor/responsibilities, internal processes for responding to task order requests, contract management/oversight structure, quality control, assured availability of key personnel/subcontractors, and past experience working as a team on projects similar to the requirements of this contract.

Key Personnel Experience (Certification and Duration) The Government will evaluate Key Personnel Experience in terms of:

• Relevancy and Duration. Experience of greater relevancy (in terms of recentness and similarity in, magnitude of effort, scope, and complexity) to the current acquisition will be given greater weight than those of lesser relevance. Relevant experience of greater duration is valued higher.

Tier 1 effective team composition with the following skill sets:

• Project Manager capable of interfacing directly with the Energy Division

• Team Lead with Army energy programs experience (ESPC, UESC, PPA and ECIP etc)

• Team members with a minimum of a CEM certification with a minimum of 3 years experience

• Reach back support that includes licensed professional electrical or mechanical engineers

• Certified in a Building Automation System (Niagara Framework, Metasys, etc)

• Trained in OSIsoft PI product line

• Certified ESRI integrator minimum of 5 years experience

• One member of the team will have a commissioning certification: CxA certification from

AABC Commissioning Group (ACG); CCP from Building Commissioning Association (BCA); CBCP from the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE)

Due to the nature of work specific certifications and expertise will be required for Tier 2 team members:

• Project Manager capable of interfacing with the Program Manager for EIM, IT Network Engineer

EIM and NECs at a minimum of 5 years experience

• Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers

• Certified Information Systems Security Professionals (CISSP)

• VMWare Certified Professionals

• Database Administrators (Microsoft SQL)

• Certified Energy Auditor

• Cisco Certified Network Associates (CCNA)

• Certified in a Building Automation System (Niagara Framework, Metasys, etc)

• Trained in OSI soft PI product line

• Certified ESRI integrator minimum of 5 years experience

Volumes 1 and 2 will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology.

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Volume 3 – Financial Capability.

Offeror must demonstrate general standards of responsibility pursuant to FAR 9.104-1:

• Must have adequate financial resources or ability to get those resources.

• Must be able to comply w/ delivery/performance schedule.

• Satisfactory performance record (no record does not preclude consideration).

• Satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics and compliance w/ applicable laws and regulations.

• Necessary organization, experience, accounting, and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them.

Volume 4 – Past Performance.

Offerors must submit documentation for no more than three (3) past or current projects that are substantially the same in scope, size and complexity as the requirements of this SOLICITATION.

Additional projects beyond the three (3) examples requested will not be evaluated. The Offeror may include federal, state, and commercial work. The Government will evaluate past performance in terms of:

• Projects that were performed, or are being performed, within approximately the last three (3) years from the SOLICITATION’s issuance date.

• A description of the project. Project information such as size, complexity, and distinctive or unique features.

• Whether the contractor was a prime or subcontractor.

• Descriptions of roles/duties in execution of the work (i.e. the major components of the project which were completed by the prime’s staff, and major components of the project which were subcontracted out).

• Descriptions f major unexpected issue(s) encountered and mitigation measures taken.

• Past project relevancy to the Scope of Work

• System architecture, planning and implementation based on DoD Internet-NIPRNet DMZ STIGs and a company’s past experience in completing and optaining Government Approval of Information Assurnace (IA)/Cyber Security artifacts and other required IA documents related specifically to full Authority to Operate (ATO). Projects of greater relevancy (in terms of recentness and similarity in, magnitude of effort, scope, and complexity) to the current acquisition will be given greater weight than those of lesser relevance. Incomplete or ongoing projects may be relevant but may be given lesser weight than completed projects. The contractor may provide any additional relevant projects within their proposal for government consideration. This information shall include updated POC contact data.

The Government reserves the right to use past performance information obtained from sources other than Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the projects identified by the contractor in its proposal, or earlier task order performance when evaluating past performance. The evaluation may take into account past performance information on subcontractors that will perform major or significant aspects of the proposed contract.

The proposal should provide specific information to demonstrate that it, or its partner/team member, has relevant experience in the PWS activities. SSEB members and the Contracting Officer may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance, provided such information is consistent with the established evaluation criteria of the solicitation. If the Offeror has no relevant performance record or if information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will be given a neutral/unknown risk rating for these factors.

Volume 3 will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival rating methodology:

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

Volume 5 – Price.

The price quote will be evaluated in determining best value to the Government. In addition, this factor will be used to assess the realism and reasonableness of the Offeror’s price.

The Offeror shall provide a price for each of the tasks listed in the PWS.

Travel should be proposed at a Not-to-Exceed price in accordance with the PWS.