RFP_HT0014-17-R-0010_Amendment_1.docx

HT0014-17-R-0010

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 17-Aug-2017 01:00 PM to 31-Aug-2017 01:00 PM.

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0001

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Personnel to support Department of Defense (DoD) Medical Service organizations, including Air Force, Army and Navy, throughout theUnited States and its territories in accordance with the attached Performance Work Statement. Pricing is by labor category - fully burdened hourly rate by location. Task orders will be issued under this contract as outlined in Part 1, Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 1.2 and 1.4. The contract ordering period is 18 November 2017 to 17 November 2022. The labor categories included in the contract can be found in Part 8, Attachment 4: Position Descriptions - Service Type I. The maximum dollar amount stated on this CLIN is an estimate only and the total dollar amounts from CLIN 0001 through CLIN 0004 combined cannot exceed $969,000,000. Applicable Product Service Codes (PSCs) include Q601, Q602, Q603, Q701, Q702, Q801, Q802, and Q999.

To:

Personnel to support Department of Defense (DoD) Medical Service organizations, including Air Force, Army and Navy, throughout theUnited States and its territories in accordance with the attached Performance Work Statement. Pricing is by labor category - fully burdened hourly rate by location. Task orders will be issued under this contract as outlined in Part 1, Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 1.2 and 1.4. The contract ordering period is 18 November 2017 to 17 November 2022. The labor categories included in the contract can be found in Part 8, Attachment 4: Position Descriptions - Service Type I. The total dollar amounts from CLIN 0001 through CLIN 0004 combined cannot exceed $969,000,000. Applicable Product Service Codes (PSCs) include Q601, Q602, Q603, Q701, Q702, Q801, Q802, and Q999.

CLIN 0002

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

All necessary equipment and labor required to perform full functional services in Department of Defense (DoD) Medical Service organizations, including Air Force, Army, and Navy, throughout the United States and its territories in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) included and the performance requirements included herein. Pricing is by service unit rate by location. Task orders will be issued as outlined in in Part 1, Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 1.2 and 1.4. The contract ordering period is 18 November 2017 to 17 November 2022. Full functional services can be found in Part 8, Attachment 5: Statement of Objectives. The maximum dollar amount stated on this CLIN is an estimate only and the total dollar amounts from CLIN 0001 through CLIN 0004 combined cannot exceed $969,000,000. Applicable Product Service Codes (PSCs) include Q601, Q602, Q603, Q701, Q702, Q801, Q802, and Q999.

To:

All necessary equipment and labor required to perform full functional services in Department of Defense (DoD) Medical Service organizations, including Air Force, Army, and Navy, throughout the United States and its territories in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) included and the performance requirements included herein. Pricing is by service unit rate by location. Task orders will be issued as outlined in in Part 1, Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 1.2 and 1.4. The contract ordering period is 18 November 2017 to 17 November 2022. Full functional services can be found in Part 8, Attachment 5: Statement of Objectives. The total dollar amounts from CLIN 0001 through CLIN 0004 combined cannot exceed $969,000,000. Applicable Product Service Codes (PSCs) include Q601, Q602, Q603, Q701, Q702, Q801, Q802, and Q999.

CLIN 0004

The IDIQ maximum order amount has decreased by $9,998,500.00 from $10,000,000.00 to $1,500.00.

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Awards: The best value approach is neither based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) nor Tradeoffs. Rather, the Government seeks to award to the offerors with the highest self-scored, Government validated, technical score with no less than Satisfactory (or Neutral) confidence performance assessment and with reasonable prices.

1.2 The Government will make a best value decision using a 4-Step evaluation process that includes responsiveness (submission and administrative requirements), technical capability, past performance and price (see Figure 1). The Government may conduct evaluations on all four steps either concurrently or sequentially.

1.3 The Government may determine that the number of proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient source selection can be conducted. For the purpose of efficiency, the Government may establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the evaluation criteria, as stated in FAR 15.306(c).

1.4 Discussions: The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

1.5 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government plans on awarding approximately twenty (20) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for the MSS Program. However, the Government reserves the right to award more, fewer or no contracts.

2. EVALUATION

2.1 The government will complete a 4-step evaluation process for each proposal received as illustrated below.

2.1.1. Submission Compliance. The government will complete an initial review of the offeror’s proposal to ensure adherence to proposal submission instructions in 52.212-1. Step 1a of the evaluation process titled “Submission Compliance” will ensure the proposal complies with all prescribed requirements which includes the timeliness of proposal submission, format compliance, and completeness of each volume. The government will consider an offeror ineligible for award if the proposal was not submitted by the required date and time, it is incomplete (missing items, signatures, etc.), or does not comply with format requirements. The Government may stop evaluation of the proposal if that occurs on an offeror’s proposal.

2.1.1.1. Volume I, Contract Administration. Additionally, in Step 1b, the government will evaluate Volume I, Contract Administration, to ensure completion of the required SF 1449 and applicable SF 30(s) as well as ensure the offeror provided the required information in that volume.

2.1.2. Volume II, Technical Capability. In Step 2, the government will validate each offeror’s claim of technical capability using the government-provided template “Technical Self-Scoring Worksheet” (Attachment 2) and their submitted supporting documentation provided in Volume II. The government will only use the supporting documentation provided by the offeror in this volume to confirm the claimed capability and point value assignment. Any claimed capability that does not have support documentation will not be considered “valid” by the government. Any task orders, Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts, GSA orders, or blanket purchase agreements consolidated into a single claimed capability will be considered not “valid”. Additionally, any supporting documentation that was not performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issue date, fails to match or lacks adequate details for the claimed technical capability or missing supporting documentation may be considered not “valid”. Any supporting documentation not related to the services of this solicitation may be considered not “valid” with the exception of “Other” under Scope. If the government cannot validate a claimed capability based on the volume provided by the offeror, the government may deem the technical capability of the offeror to be unacceptable; discontinue evaluation efforts for the offeror’s proposal and deem the offeror ineligible for award. However, if the Government enters into discussions, offeror(s) may be given an opportunity to address the issue and /or revise their technical score (i.e., recalculating the total points given for technical capability and/or provide additional supporting documentation); thus, offerors may be considered for award. The technical evaluation disposition will be at the discretion of the Government. The government reserves the right to enter into discussions with all or only the offerors’ with the highest claimed technical scores. Those offerors whose claimed items on the technical worksheet are fully validated will continue to Step 3, Past Performance, either concurrently or sequentially.

2.1.3. Volume III, Past Performance. If proposals are evaluated sequentially, it is the government’s intent that only proposals with the highest scores on the Technical Self Scoring Worksheet (Attachment 2) will proceed to Step 3, Past Performance Evaluation. If the government evaluates proposals concurrently, the government will evaluate all offerors. In Step 3, the Government will evaluate the past performance record based on the references provided by the offeror and any other available information obtained by other sources. A complete reference is provided by the offeror in Volume IV and includes: past performance information sheet printed by the PPI tool (Attachment 4), and saved as a pdf file, a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 5) only if no CPARS is available, Consent Letter (Attachment 6), if applicable, and Client Authorization Letter (Attachment 7), if applicable. Only completed references will be included in the integrated assessment of recency, relevancy and quality of past performance for each offeror. The government past performance evaluation will include verification of dates of service (recent) as well as a determination of relevancy and the quality of performance on that reference to assess the Government’s confidence in an offeror’s ability to supply services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence will be assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level. As a result of an analysis, each offeror with an acceptable submission and administrative compliance record and an acceptable technical capability shall receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating for the past performance factor as described below in Table 1.

2.1.3.1. To be recent, the effort must have been ongoing for at least six (6) months prior to the date this solicitation is issued and must have been in performance within the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Government will not evaluate past performance information that fails to meet this recency criteria.

2.1.3.2. The most relevant contracts will be those which most closely match the scope, magnitude, complexity and applicability of the contract. The scope considers the types of labor categories [Part 8, Attachment 4, Position Descriptions], and services/operational activities [Part 8, Attachment 5, Statement of Objectives] on a single task order or contract. Offerors shall not consolidate option periods or individual task orders, GSA, FSS, BPA or commercial agreements to increase relevancy. A scope of at least one (1) full service or two (2) different MSS labor categories on a single contract is relevant. Magnitude considers the number of personnel provided on a contract and the overall dollar value of the performance reference [greater than 2 full time personnel and a value of greater than or equal to $70K} to be relevant. The solicitation minimum or maximum is not reflective of the overall program size for purposes of past performance evaluation. Complexity considers the nationwide geographic locations [at least two states] and the business relationship between the prime and the subcontractor(s). Applicability considers the customer as well as contract and pricing type performance. To be relevant, the reference is for a FFP type of contract for a DoD customer. The Government may not agree with the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

2.1.3.3. The Government may take the percentage of work into consideration from Attachment 1, Contractor Teaming/Organizational Structure (Tab 2c of the Technical Volume and Tab 4 of the Past Performance Volume), if applicable, when assigning the overall confidence rating. If the teaming structure provided is incomplete or unclear, it may result in a lower performance confidence rating. Submittal of past performance information for a teaming partner/subcontractor for a specific full service/operational activity who will not be performing that work with the offeror may not be considered relevant.

2.1.3.4. Submitted information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. The Government may consider as relevant efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local Governments and commercial customers. Each previous/current contract provided in the proposal will receive one of the relevancy ratings listed in Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Assessment below.

Table 1 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

1. Provides one (1) MSS full service/operational activity or two (2) different MSS labor categories; and

1. Provides > two (2) FTEs; and

1. Contract is a FFP contract - Value is > or = to $70K annually; OR

1. Performs in at least two (2) states; and

1. Customer is DHA or Air Force

1. Provides at least one (1) MSS full service/operational activity or one (1) MSS labor category; and

1. Provides > 0.1 but < or = 2 FTEs; and

1. Contract Value is at least $40K annually; and

1. Performs in at least one (1) or more state; and

1. Any customer is acceptable

1. Provides none of the solicited medical support services; or

1. Contract value is less than $30K annually

2.1.3.5. The evaluation for the Past Performance volume will ensure that the offeror provided the record of relevant past performance on up to eight (8) previous/current contracts with three (3) being for the offeror’s performance as prime. The evaluation will ensure that past performance information is provided for each teaming partner/subcontractor whose percentage of contract workload is highest as documented in Attachment 1, Team Composition Worksheet. The Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources during the evaluation. The Government will then assign a relevancy rating to each past performance reference per Table 2. NOTE: If the prime has no partners, all references will be for the offeror.

2.1.3.5.1. If three (3) references are not available from the offeror as a prime contractor, reference(s) as a teaming partner/subcontractor may be provided or key personnel; however, the Government will consider performance as the prime contractor more relevant than performance as a subcontractor. Performance as a sub-contractor is considered more relevant than performance of key personnel.

2.1.3.5.2. If an offeror is a joint venture (JV) with no past performance information, the past performance record of all companies forming the JV will be considered and the past performance section must contain references from each company forming the JV. If the JV company, as the offeror, has a past performance record, the past performance record of the JV company will be considered for evaluation purposes. If the JV company has less than three (3) past performance records for the offeror, the past performance records of the individual companies comprising the JV will be considered to make up the minimum number of three (3) past performance references for the offeror. If a JV is comprised of both a small and large business, performance by the small business company will be considered more relevant than performance by the large business company.

2.1.3.5.3. If an offeror is a Mentor Protégé (MP) with no past performance information, the mentor’s past performance record will be considered. However, the Government will consider performance references provided for both the mentor and the protégé more relevant than performance references for just the mentor.

2.1.3.5.4. Each contract shall be considered a single reference for purposes of this evaluation. If past performance proposal provides separate task orders for a single contractor into multiple references, the Government will consider those task orders as a single reference. Contract or task/delivery orders, Federal Supply Schedule contracts, GSA orders, or blanket purchase agreements containing option periods will also be evaluated as a single past performance reference over the life of the contract.

2.1.3.5.5. Quality of Performance. Past Performance Questionnaire sent to the reference by the offeror must be included in Volume III in each reference Tab (1A through 2E). The evaluator must sign all questionnaires. The source selection evaluation team will NOT consider any past performance questionnaires that are incomplete or unsigned by the customer. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. In addition, the Government may utilize: (1) official Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) reports from the Past Performance Information Repository System (PPIRS) or similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, (2) questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, (3) information from the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), (4) interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and (5) other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. The quality level assigned by the performance raters is shown in Table 3, Performance Quality Ratings below.

2.1.3.5.6. Primary customer contacts will complete the questionnaire using the performance ratings per Table 3 – Performance Level below. Other sources of past performance information will also be assigned this level of performance rating by the Government during the evaluation.

2.1.3.5.7. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating overall or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

2.1.3.5.7.1. Adverse past performance is considered to be any overall rating below Satisfactory on any questionnaire, survey, or Government evaluation. Offerors with adverse past performance will be afforded an opportunity to address alleged performance issues if the offeror has not already been provided an opportunity to comment on the issues IAW FAR 15.306(a)(2) and FAR 15.306(b)(4). Where a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any actual implemented corrective actions (not merely planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective action has been implemented and to evaluate its effectiveness.

2.1.3.6. Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating (Table 1) at the factor level. If an Offeror’s past performance rating is “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence”, the Offeror will no longer be considered for award. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. As a result, these offerors will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

2.1.3.6.1. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.1.4 VOLUME IV – PRICE FACTOR

Step 4 is the government’s evaluation of the offeror’s price volume for completeness and price reasonableness. However, the government reserves the right to evaluate offeror pricing for realism.

2.1.4.1. Completeness: The Government will review the Pricing submissions for completeness of all hourly rates as well as Total Evaluated Price. The completeness review will focus on whether the offeror used the Government-developed Excel file as required, and whether the pricing tables included blanks, or unreadable files, copies or data were received. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the offeror’s proposal may be eliminated from the competition. The government’s completeness review will include all fully burdened hourly rates and total evaluated price in the Pricing Template at Attachment 3.

2.1.4.1.1. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes using the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The estimated workload and the TEP are for evaluation purposes only and no way represent true or future obligated or total dollars. Nor, do they reflect the overall contract maximum or likely order level.

2.1.4.1.2. The TEP is calculated as the sum of the offeror’s total prices for Year 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for Service Type #1 (see Pricing Template, Wksht 3, Row 18, Column AR). Although the TEP shown in Wksht 4, Cell A2, it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure the TEP and fully burdened Hourly Rate cells are complete and accurate.

2.1.4.2. Reasonableness. The Government will conduct a price analysis. The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and will rely on market forces and price analysis to ensure that awarded prices are fair and reasonable. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price, to include but is not limited to the following: a comparison of all offerors proposed fully burdened labor rates, comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar service/items, comparison with competitive market prices of similar indexes, and GSA Schedule(s) or Department of Labor wage/salary indexes or comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Cost estimate or Department of Labor Wage Determinations.

2.1.4.3 Realism. The proposed fully burdened hourly rates may be evaluated for price realism. As stated in the instructions, for the purposes of this acquisition, the fully burdened rates should include all worker direct labor costs as well as any fringe benefits, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and/or profit. If the Government evaluates for realism (low price), proposed fully burdened hourly rates will be compared to Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) requirements and the highest Wage Determination rate for the nation. While offerors are free to submit whatever fully burdened hourly rates they see fit, offerors are encouraged to consider the SCLS requirements when developing their prices. If the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened rate is lower than the SCLS minimums, the Government may determine the Offeror’s pricing to not be realistic.

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52-212-1

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES

a. The resulting contracts from this acquisition will be Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Contracts (MACs). This requirement is 100% small business set-aside under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) number 621999. The Government anticipates awarding approximately 20 IDIQ contracts.

b. All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) web site at http://www.fbo.gov under the Solicitation Number HT0014-17-R-0010 Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

c. Market research confirmed that subcontracting and teaming arrangements are necessary because of the broad scope of the contract requirements; therefore such arrangements are encouraged to ensure mission success. However, during the contract competition, if a company is identified as a prime contractor or teaming partner/subcontractor on any proposal for this acquisition, then they cannot participate as a prime contractor or teaming partner/subcontractor on any other offeror’s proposal(s). This limitation includes the companies of mentor protégé arrangements and joint venture partners. After award of contracts, for subsequent task order competitions, the government continues to prohibit cross-teaming.

d. For consideration in developing a proposal, the maximum program size is $969M over a five year ordering period. The Government will award each contract the total maximum program size, allowing the ordering Services to expend program funds on a task order by task order fair opportunity basis as specified in Part 1, Paragraph 1.2 (Subsequent Task Orders). However, since this contract is an ID/IQ-ordering vehicle, the Government does not guarantee the contract holders any awards above the minimum contract award outlined in Part 1, Paragraph 1.9 (Post Award Conference). Congressional budget year allocations and prioritized requirements may drive future task order awards and exercise of task order options.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

a. This section provides guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Non-conformance with the instructions may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

b. The Contracting Officer (KO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. The KO for this acquisition is as follows:

Ms. Hanika Torio 8111 Gatehouse Road Falls Church, VA 22042

(703) 275-6371 E-mail: hanika.j.torio.civ@mail.mil

(1) E-mail is the preferred method of communication. The KO will control exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors. The Government may use email to transmit such information to offerors only if they are encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104.” in the Subject line along with the Solicitation Number HT0014-17-R-0010. Otherwise, the Government will transmit source selection information via fax. Offerors may send questions via e-mail to both the KO hanika.j.torio.civ@mail.mil and the CS john.a.cowgill4.ctr@mail.mil; however, no proposals will be accepted via email or fax.

(2) Offerors who determine that the technical requirements of this RFP require clarification(s) in order to permit submittal of a responsive proposal are requested to submit all questions in writing on or before 26 July 2017. These questions shall be directed to the KO and CS identified above. The Government will issue RFP Questions and Answers on fbo.gov and amend the RFP if required to clarify RFP requirements.

The deadline for questions in response to Government-issued RFP as amended is 21 August 2017 at 2 p.m. EDT. Offerors are instructed to email questions to John Cowgill john.a.cowgill4.ctr@mail.mil and Hanika Torio hanika.j.torio.civ@mail.mil.

(3) If discussions are held, the KO will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon, offerors may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The KO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

e. Elaborate formats, or color presentations are not desired or required. Offeror may only include corporate logos in Volume I – Administration.

f. Oral presentations will not be considered for this competitive acquisition.

g. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. Proprietary information submitted in response to this solicitation will be protected from unauthorized disclosure as required by Subsection 27 of the Office of Procurement Policy Act as amended (41 U.S.C. 423), hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, as implemented in the FAR.

h. The Government requires an electronic proposal submission with the offeror’s entire proposal loaded on a single DVD-R (Digital Versatile Disk – Recordable). The Government does not require any paper proposals. Due to mailbox constraints, offerors may not submit proposals to the Government via e-mail; faxed copies are also not authorized. The disk shall be labeled with the Company Name, the Solicitation Number and date submitted to the Government. As a minimum, each volume must be in a different directory (folder) on the disk. Offerors shall include separate files with the required naming conventions in accordance with Table 1 below. All documents shall be submitted in portable document format (PDF) format that is created to be searched and copied with the EXCEPTION of the unique files in the Government specified format (See Table 1). DO NOT submit any documents in PDF format that are copied as “images.” The offeror’s documents/files will be provided in a non-compressed format. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that the electronic files submitted are virus free.

(1) Offerors must send their electronic proposal disk by United State Postal Service, FedEx or United Parcel Service or hand delivered to Hanika Torio, C/O Tina Altevers, Defense Health Agency, 2776 C Street, Area B, Building 6, Suite 200, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433. Pre-arrangement for hand delivery is required. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to make those arrangements to assure meeting the proposal deadline. If the Offeror decides to mail the proposal, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to assure the correct address and to meet the proposal deadlines. The government will not accept late proposals even if due to third party shipping delays. Proposals received after the due date and time specified herein will be considered late, will not be evaluated and will be deemed ineligible for award.

(2) Offerors shall not lock, encrypt, copy as an image, password protect or otherwise place barriers to opening files for their proposal submissions. In the event where the Government cannot access the electronic version to complete evaluation, the government will consider the offer invalid and the proposal will be deemed ineligible for award.

(3) If the Government receives more than one DVD-R from an Offeror, the proposal will be deemed invalid, will not be evaluated and will be deemed ineligible for award.

i. All proposal information is subject to verification by the Government. The documentation must be in the Offeror’s name as submitted in Block 17a of the Standard Form (SF) 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items, with a corresponding Cage Code and DUNS Number. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their operation and will rely on documentation provided as part of the Offeror’s proposal. By signing the SF 1449, the Offeror acknowledges that the terms and conditions of the proposals are valid for a minimum of 180 calendar days after the proposal due date in Block 8.

j. Files shall not contain classified data and must adhere to the page limitations in Table 1. The Government will not read and evaluation pages that exceed any limitation identified in Table 1, Proposal Organization. For this document, an electronic page is identified as follows:

· Page: One face of a 8.5” x 11” sheet of paper containing information

· Paragraph: Separated by at least one blank line

· Page Numbering: Sequentially

· Font: Times New Roman Font; 12-point minimum font size

· Margins: Top, Bottom, Left, Right shall be 1”

· Tables graphs and illustrations: Font size no less than 8 point

· Page layout: Orientation may be portrait or landscape

k. The following documents are limited to the Government specified format and remain in the template format (Save files in default format (e.g., Word Document – Set “save as type” to “Word Document [*.docx]” only and Excel spreadsheets – Set "save as type" to "Microsoft Excel Workbook [*.xlsx]").

· SF1449 and all Amendments (SF 30)

· Team/Organizational Structure (Attachment 1)

· Technical Self Scoring Worksheet (Attachment 2)

· Pricing Template (Attachment 3)

· Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool (Attachment 4)

· Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 5)

l. Representations and Certifications: Offerors shall ensure that their registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) database is current, complete, and applicable to this solicitation. The Contracting Officer will check SAM and document the contract file.

m. Cross-referencing: Each volume shall be written on a standalone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no requirement to cross-reference to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of their proposals and the Government will not search for information that is not provided in the required Volume.

n. Award without Discussions: It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best effort to demonstrate technical, past performance and price. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary.

o. Clarifications: Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in instructions. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of the proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or to respond to adverse past performance information to which the offerors have not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract(s) without the opportunity for proposal revision.

3. PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

a. The Offeror shall organize the proposal as set forth in Table 1, Proposal Organization and subsequent detailed supporting documentation provided in proposal tabs. In accordance with Paragraph 2.h, electronic proposals are required. The Offeror shall organize their proposal by Volume and submit the proposal on a single disk with four (4) separate electronic folders, labeled by volume number and title, as follows:

Volume I – Contract Administration Volume II – Technical Capability Volume III – Past Performance Volume IV – Price

b. Within each of the four (4) folders, offerors will submit the required information, electronic documents or supporting materials per Table 1 below. Offerors must include their company name and volume number as shown in the filename of each document. An example is shown in Table 1. For example, ABC Incorporated filename for Volume II, Scope supporting documentation would be: ABC.VOLII.TAB2A.pdf. (Filenames do not have to be capitalized). Offerors may make minor adjustments to the file naming methodology so long as the resulting file names and organization are clearly understandable. Offerors should plan on submitting a single file for each item versus multiple files.

HT0014-17-R-0010

Table 1 - Proposal Organization

Tab 2 – Company Information Tab2a – Authorized Offeror Personnel Tab 2b – Company address, Identifying codes and Designations Tab 2c - Teaming/Organization Structure (Attachment 1) Tab 3 – Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements Tab 4 – Certifications and Representations Tab 5 – Letter of Credit Tab 6 – Master Table of Contents Tab 7 – Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABC.VOLI.TAB2

ABC.VOLI.TAB2a ABC.VOLI.TAB2b ABC.VOLI.TAB2c

ABC.VOLI.TAB3

ABC.VOLI.TAB4

ABC.VOLI.TAB5

ABC.VOLI.TAB6

ABC.VOLI.TAB7

Tabs 1 through 11 are supporting documentation (as applicable) Tab 1a though 1e 2– Scope (LC & SVC) Tab 2a through 2f – Scope (Hard to Fill/Turnover) Tab 3a and 3b – Scope (Healthcare setting) Tab 4a– Magnitude ( Highest contract value) Tab 4b – Magnitude (Total FTEs in 5 years) Tab 4c – Magnitude (Total Contracts) Tab 5a through i –Complexity (locations) Tab 6a through e – Complexity (hard locations) Tab 7a and b – Complexity (Prime Experience) Tab 8 – Complexity (subcontractor management) Tab 9a through e – Applicability (Customers) Tab 10a - Applicability (IDIQ experience) Tab 11a - Applicability (FFP experience) Tab 12 – Teaming/Organizational Structure (Attachment 1) Tab WKSHT limited to 4 Pages in Government-provided template.

Tabs 1through 11 are supporting documentation (see instructions below); each supporting documentation file is limited to 10 Pages with the exception of the Magnitude tabs which is 40 pages.

ABC.VOLII.WKSHT

ABC.VOLII.TAB1*

ABC.VOLII.TAB2*

ABC.VOLII.TAB3*

ABC.VOLII.TAB4a ABC.VOLII.TAB4b ABC.VOLII.TAB4c

ABC.VOLII.TAB5

Etc.

Tab 1B – Prime Reference 2 Tab 1C – Prime Reference 3 Tab 2A – Teaming Partner (highest % of planned work) Reference 1 Tab 2B – Teaming Partner (second highest % of planned work) Reference 2 Tab 2C – Teaming Partner (third %...) Reference 3 Tab 2D - Teaming Partner (fourth %...) Reference 4 Tab 2E - Teaming Partner (fifth %...) Reference 5 Tab 3 – Organization Change History Tab 4 – Teaming/Organizational Structure (Attachment 1)

ABC.VOLIII.TAB1B

ABC.VOLIII.TAB1C

ABC.VOLIII.TAB2A

ABC.VOLIII.TAB2B

ABC.VOLIII.TAB2C

ABC.VOLIII.TAB2D

ABC.VOLIII.TAB2E

ABC.VOLIII.TAB3

ABC.VOLIII.TAB4

Tab 2 – Price Assumptions

1 A complete past performance reference consists of:

1. Past performance information sheet printed from PPI tool (Attachment 4)

2. Past Performance Questionnaire, if required (Attachment 5)

3. Consent letter, if required (Attachment 6)

4. Client authorization letter, if required (Attachment 7)

3.1 Volume I – Contract Administration

In this volume of the proposal, the offeror shall provide the following information:

Tab 1 - Standard Form (SF) 1449, SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS and SF 30, AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/ MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT: Complete blocks 12, 17a, 17b (if applicable), 23, 24, 30a, 30b, and 30c of the RFP Section A, SF 1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K. These sections constitute the model contract. The SF 1449 shall be provided in Volume 1. If the solicitation is amended, for each issued amendment, complete blocks 8, 15A, 15B and 15C of the SF 30, and include in this section of the proposal.

The government recommends that offerors also consider the requirements above in Paragraph 2.b.(i).

Tab 2 - Company Information:

a. Authorized Offeror Personnel. Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government. Additionally, provide the name, title, and telephone number of the CEO, Division President, and/or Vice President of the company for notification purposes.

b. Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations. Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; TIN; and labor surplus area designation. This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other location(s). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

c. Teaming/Organizational Structure (Attachment 1). If subcontractors or teaming partners are proposed, the offeror must complete Attachment 1 showing the government their teaming/organizational structure. The offeror will include the completed document in three areas of their proposal: Volume 1, Tab 2c, Volume II, Tab 12, and Volume III, Tab 4. Attachment 1 should be complete and clearly identify the company names and addresses of all teaming partners or subcontractors that will perform under this contract along with the percentage of projected assigned workload along with the performance locations for that teaming partner. Therefore, the offeror needs to provide the name of the teaming partner/subcontractor for each Product Service Code grouping listed. If more than one company will provide the service category, each service category. The plan will ensure at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees/services provided by the concerned. The contractor’s plan must demonstrate and describe compliance with all legal requirements, including but not limited to, FAR 52.219-14 – Limitations on Subcontracting, 13 CFR 124-510, 13 CFR 125.6, 15 USC 64.

Tab 3 - Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. This information shall be provided in the format and content of Table 2 below.

Table 2 - Solicitation Exceptions Solicitation Document Page/ Paragraph Requirement/ Portion Rationale

Page and Paragraph Numbers

Why the requirement can/will not be met.

Tab 4 - Representations, Certifications (Tab 4): Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections D through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections D through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.

Mentor-Protégé Agreements and 8(a) Joint Venture Certifications. If the Offeror is part of Mentor-Protégé agreement or an 8(a) joint venture, the offeror shall provide a copy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) approved Mentor-Protégé agreement and/or Joint Venture certification documentation. For either Mentor-Protégé or 8(a) Joint Ventures, the SBA must receive the certification documentation prior to the proposal due date and the Government must receive the SBA-approved documentation before the date of notice or announcement of award of any contract. If the Government does not receive the SBA-approved documentation of the Mentor-Protégé or 8(a) Joint Venture agreement as of notice or announcement of award of any contract, the Mentor-Protégé offeror shall be eliminated from the competition. The Government will not delay contract award waiting for SBA approval.

Tab 5 - Letter of Credit: Offerors must include a Letter of Credit to demonstrate the offeror’s financial health and capacity to cover startup expenses for this requirement. The document, issued by a bank or other financial institution, shall provide the offeror a line of credit for a minimum of $2 million. The Letter of Credit shall include contact information of the issuing organization and the Letter of Credit may be contingent upon award of this contract. The date of the letter can be issued anytime between release of the RFP and proposal due date. Offerors may submit a Letter of Credit with an initial expiration date to cover the entire performance period (5-years) or a letter with an initial expiration date that is a minimum period of one year from the date of issuance. If valid for the first year, the letter will be required to be renewed and provided to the contracting officer annually. The document, issued by a bank or other financial institution must include contact information for the issuing organization.

Tab 6 - Master Table of Contents: The Offeror shall provide a table of contents in the Contract Administration Volume that serves as an overall guide to what files are provided in electronic format, where they are located, file name and brief descriptions of the documents. The table of contents will not be evaluated.

Tab 7 - Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms: Include a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the proposals (all 4 volumes).

3.2 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

a. For purposes of this technical proposal evaluation the Offeror shall claim medical support services capability using the government template for the Technical Self-Scoring Worksheet. Offerors may not consolidate more than one Government or commercial contract or task order, (including FSS, GSA, BPAs) or option periods into a single file to claim higher point value. The Government considers task orders to be stand-alone contracts. See additional Supporting Documentation instructions below in Paragraph c. The Offeror shall complete the Technical Self Scoring Worksheet (Attachment 2) in the electronic format provided in this solicitation and provide the completed Excel file and all supporting documentation in Volume II. No other format will be considered. The offeror shall not alter or add rows, columns, or formulas in the worksheet. The worksheet titled “Self Scoring Sheet” has 143 rows divided into 4 Categories: Scope, Magnitude, Complexity and Applicability.