Attachment_4-Submission_and_Evaluation_of_Proposals-Revised.pdf

15B31719R00000001 Attachment 4

ATTACHMENT 4

SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

Submission of Proposals

Proposals shall be submitted in three separate volumes in accordance with the following requirements.

Volume 1 - Technical Proposal Volume 2 - Past Performance Proposal Volume 3 - Business Proposal

Proposals must be submitted as follows:

A. Electronic Proposals via e-mail. Volumes 1, 2, and 3 must be transmitted electronically via e-mail to gra/fao-cms~@bop.gov and carbon copied (cc:) to vsighamony@bop.gov. The documents must be in PDF format. All documents must be submitted and in the Government's control by the due date and time set forth in Block 8 of the Standard Form (SF) 1449, page 1 of the solicitation. Please refer to FAR 52.212- 1(f)(2)(i)(A), (B), and (C). The Government e-mail system can only receive documents up to 14 megabytes (MB). Therefore, the e-mail with attachments must be less than

14MB.

B. Offers received after the proposal deadline will be processed pursuant to FAR 52.212-

1(f). It remains the Offerors responsibility to ensure ALL DOCUMENTS are in the Government's control by the proposal due date and time.

C. The Offeror is responsible to ensure all electronic documents have good resolution and are LEGIBLE. The PDF file must also be text searchable.

D. Hard copies of proposals will not be accepted.

Instructions for Preparation of Technical Proposal

The Offeror's technical proposal will be an important consideration in the award of the resulting contract; therefore, it should be specific and complete. The technical proposal shall set forth in detail an Offeror's conceptual approach to, and interpretation of the following: stated contract goals; proposed work plan for achieving contract objective; proposed methodology and techniques of performing the contract; and the technical resources, experience and background, as well as unique or specialized skills and expertise of both the Offeror and proposed subcontractors.

The Offeror's proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing straightforward, concise delineation of capabilities to perform satisfactorily the contract being sought. The technical proposal should therefore be practical, legible, clear, and coherent. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete and effective response to this solicitation are not desired. Elaborate artwork and expensive paper, bindings, and presentation aids are neither necessary nor wanted.

The technical evaluation criteria stated within this solicitation will be used by the technical panel in evaluating proposals; therefore, each technical proposal must contain enough specificity to address each evaluation factor and the terms and conditions of the Performance Work Statement. In order that an evaluation may be accomplished strictly on the merit of the material submitted, the technical proposal shall not make reference to pricing data.

Proposals which merely paraphrase the requirements of the Government's Performance Work Statement or parts thereof or use such phrases as "will comply" or "standard techniques will be employed" and/or cut and paste information from a proposed subcontractor's website will not be acceptable. The Offeror must submit an explanation of the proposed technical approach in conjunction with the tasks to be performed in achieving the required output.

Instructions for Preparation of Past Performance Proposal

The proposal must describe the experience of the Offeror that is relevant to this contract:

- Experience providing health care to a diverse inmate population;

- Experience establishing and maintaining relationships with a large and diverse number of health care providers and/or organizations;

- Experience receiving and disseminating medical records to and from multiple health care providers.

The following information shall be included in each Past Performance Proposal:

1. A list of a total of three (3) of the Offeror’s most recently awarded relevant contracts with a period of performance of at least twelve (12) months. The listing shall include all items listed below:

a. Name of contracting activity;

b. Contract number;

c. Date of Award;

d. Estimated Awarded Amount;

e. Contract Performance Period;

f. Name, Mailing Address, telephone number, fax number, and email address of the Contracting Officer, Program Manager, and Administrative Contracting;

g. Relevancy: Describe the relevancy of the past or present contract to this RFP. Relevancy discussion could include a comparison to providing health care to an inmate population of a similar care level as identified in Attachment 2.

h. Provide any other information the Offeror deems important to understand the past performance of the contracts, the Offeror’s ability to deliver quality medical services, meet schedule/performance requirements, and achieve customer satisfaction.

2. For Offerors with no relevant past performance history, the Offeror shall state

“No Past Performance History Available”. In cases where an Offeror has no previous past performance or past performance information is unavailable, the Offeror will receive a neutral rating and will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably.

A Past Performance Questionnaire is provided as Attachment 9 to this solicitation. Offerors shall complete the sections entitled “Reference Identification” and “Contract Identification” and forward a copy of the entire questionnaire to be completed by the three (3) references identified in above. Offerors shall advise the reference that the completed questionnaire is to be considered source selection sensitive in accordance with FAR 3.104. Completed questionnaires shall be submitted as part of the Past Performance Proposal.

Any questionnaire received from an organization other than those identified in above will not be considered. In accordance with FAR 15.306, Offerors may be given an opportunity to address especially unfavorable reports of past performance, and the Offeror's response, or lack of, will be taken into consideration. An Offeror's opportunity to address reports of negative past performance information could be affected by the Government's entitlement to award without discussions. Offerors would be well served to be aware of possible dissatisfied customers and address expected negative issues in initial proposal submissions. Generally, negative information obtained from references provided by the Offeror is considered historical in nature, not subject to change, and not a matter for discussions.

Instructions for Preparation of Business Proposal

An Offeror's business proposal shall consist of the following information:

1. Completed Schedule of Items and Sub-Contract Certification: Attachment 1

2. Completed certification entered onto the provision 52.209-7, Information Regarding

Responsibility Matters, of this solicitation.

3. Completed representations and certifications entered onto the provision at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representation and Certifications - Commercial Items." (Only if Offeror has not completed annual electronic representations and certifications in the System for Award Management (SAM) as specified at FAR 4.1201.)

4. A brief explanation of the Offeror's management structure as it relates to the performance of services under the contract.

5. A reference at a financial institution with general knowledge of the Offeror's financial resources. Please include the name of the individual, name of the financial institution, address, and phone number.

6. Audited and/or certified financial statements (balance sheet, profit and loss statement) for the previous fiscal year.

Freedom of Information Act Notice

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its amendments have resulted in an increasing number of requests from outside the Government for copies of contract proposals submitted to Federal agencies. If an Offeror's proposal contains information that he/she believes should be withheld from such requestors, under FOIA, on grounds that it is "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential" [(b)(4) of the FOIA], the Offeror should identify all such information so that if the proposal is ever the subject of a FOIA request, the decision to disclose or withhold can be made promptly by the responsible Federal official. If the Offeror considers parts of the proposal withholdable under FOIA, the following notice should be placed on the title page:

"Some parts of this document, as identified on individual pages, are considered by the submitter to be privileged or confidential trade secrets or commercial or financial information not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Material considered privileged or confidential on such grounds is contained on pages ______ ."

The Offeror should mark each individual item considered privileged or confidential under the FOIA with the following notice:

"The data or information is considered confidential or privileged, and not subject to mandatory disclosure under the FOIA."

All information in the Offeror's proposal which is not designated may be subject to automatic public disclosure, if it is requested under FOIA. It must be emphasized that under FOIA no information is automatically exempt from public disclosure. However, no disclosures under FOIA will be made without a careful and exacting evaluation, giving due regard to the need for safeguarding material considered by the submitter to be privileged or confidential. The Department of Justice's policy is to withhold, whenever possible, material that is genuinely privileged or confidential.

Evaluation of Proposals

Evaluation Procedures

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in this solicitation. The results of the proposal evaluation will be used to determine whether an Offeror's proposal will be considered for inclusion within the competitive range for the purpose of discussions. Offerors are hereby notified that the competitive range may be limited to the greatest number of proposals that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Offerors are also advised that a contract award may be made without discussions; therefore, the initial proposal should provide the Government with sufficient information to recommend a contract award without discussions and should reflect the Offeror's ability to perform at a reasonable price.

Technical Evaluation

The Technical Evaluation Plan will rate each Offeror's proposal against technical evaluation criteria. A technical proposal deserving of an outstanding rating shall receive a higher rating than that of a mediocre proposal, as compared to the technical evaluation criteria. The technical evaluation shall be based on the documentation which supports an Offeror's ability to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of this solicitation.

Past Performance Evaluation

Offerors are advised that the Government will utilize information located in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and information obtained from the three

(3) references as well as the response from the Offeror regarding experience relevant to this contract to evaluate past performance. If adequate information is available in CPARS, the Government may only use information from CPARS in the past performance evaluation. The past performance questionnaires will be used in the evaluation at the Government’s discretion.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance for (a) relevancy, (b) quality of services, (c) timeliness of deliverables/adherence to performance schedule, (d) cost control, (e) management, (f) utilization of small business, and (g) regulatory compliance. Performance information will be used for both responsibility determinations and as an evaluation factor against which Offerors' ratings will be compared in the determination of best value to the Government. Past performance will be rated and the Government's conclusions about the Offeror's past performance will be considered in determining the relative merits of the Offeror's proposal.

The Government reserves the right to use past performance information obtained from other than the sources identified by the Offeror. Information may be utilized from the references listed in the proposal and other relevant references known to the BOP. The Government also reserves the right to disregard a reference as non-relevant if that reference is unable to provide an informative response. The Government reserves the right to review past performance information received by the Contracting Officer following the deadline for receipt of proposals and up to the time of award.

Evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on consideration of facts and circumstances. It will not be on absolute standards of acceptable performance. By evaluating past performance, the Government intends to consider the Offeror's record of conforming to specifications and to standards of good workmanship; the Offeror's adherence to contract schedules, including administrative aspects of performance; the Offeror's reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, the Offeror's business-like concern for the interests of the customer. This is a matter of judgment.

Price Evaluation

An objective price evaluation and analysis will be performed on each Offeror's price proposal. Offerors are requested to submit a separate price proposal for the base period and each individual option period, as specified in this solicitation. The evaluated price will be inclusive of the base year and all option years.

Price proposals will be evaluated to determine which proposal offers the lowest price to the Government. The Offeror providing the highest discount from the Medicare rate will be considered to be offering the lowest price in each category. The Offeror proposing the highest premium to the Medicare rate will be considered to be offering the highest price in each category. For other items, Offeror proposing the lowest unit price will be considered to be offering the lowest price in each category. Offerors must adhere strictly to the pricing methodology required by the solicitation. Offerors who vary their pricing methodology create a situation whereby the Government cannot conduct a comparative evaluation of offers in pricing aspects. Therefore, any Offeror who proposes a pricing methodology in any pricing category which varies from the prescribed (e.g., proposing multiple rates within any category or proposing a differing methodology) will receive no pricing score for each such category.

Evaluation Criteria

The Government intends to make a single award to an Offeror, pursuant to an affirmative determination of responsibility, whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be in the best interest of the Government, price and other factors considered. In this tradeoff process, non-price factors (when combined) are approximately equal to price. Technical criteria and past performance are of equal value.

Evaluation criteria to be applied to proposals received in response to this solicitation are detailed below. Offerors are advised that should the Offeror's proposals be considered approximately the same or equal under non-price factors, price could be paramount in the selection decision.

Technical Criteria

Demonstrated approach to providing an appropriate mix of resources to deliver quality medical care to the inmates of FCI Bennettsville, while mitigating the Government's costs and security risks, as measured by the following subfactors, which are of equal importance:

1. Level of diversity of services proposed;

2. Accreditation status of the proposed contract facility(ies);

3. Enhancements to the basic contract requirements proposed by the Offeror which will facilitate FCI Bennettsville’s ability to conform to the BOP's stated mission;

4. Driving distance/conditions to and from the community-based providers.

Past Performance Criteria

Subfactors 1 through 7 are listed below and are of equal importance.

1. Relevancy

2. Quality of services

3. Timeliness of deliverables/Adherence to performance schedule

4. Cost Control

5. Management

6. Utilization of Small Business

7. Regulatory Compliance

Price

Pricing categories are listed below in descending order of importance.

1. Outpatient Facility Services

2. Inpatient Facility Services

3. Outpatient Physician Services

4. Inpatient Physician Services

5. Outpatient Institution Services - Other Physicians

6. Outpatient Institution Services – Oral Surgeon

A proportionate amount of points will be awarded to each Offeror below the highest-ranked Offeror in each category.