RFQ_75D301-18-Q-69405_Amendment_2.pdf

Introduction – CDC Request 75D301-18-Q-69405 – Amendment 2

A.1 Purpose

This is a CDC Request for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this request.

A.1.2 Solicitation Number The solicitation number is 75D301-18-Q-69405 and is being issued as a request for proposal (RFP). The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular FAC 2005-99.

A.1.3 NAICS Code The associated North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is 541690 with a small business size standard of $15,000,000.00. THIS IS A FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION.

Offeror must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at http://www.sam.gov, in order to be considered for award.

A.1.4 Type of Contract This solicitation request is a request for competitive proposal. This requirement is for validation of temperature-controlled storage units may result in the award of one Firm Fixed Price contract. The term of the resulting contract shall be 3 months effective date of the contract.

A.1.5 Performance Review & Period of Performance A Government review of performance will be performed annually through CPARS. CPARS is the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System that reports to the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) which provides timely and relevant information on Contractor performance for use in source selection. The anticipated Period of Performance for this requirement is September 28, 2018 thru December 31, 2018.

A.2 Summary of Key Factors & Shipping

Validation of temperature-controlled storage units must be performing by experienced and qualified personnel using certified and calibrated equipment. Site-appropriate procedures and acceptance criteria that meet manufacturer recommendations and industry standards for quality must be developed. Upon approval by CBR staff, the temperature validation plans will be implemented within the agreed upon timeframe. Full documentation of successful validation will be prepared and delivered to CDC. See Section B.2, specifically requirements and tasks in B.2.3 and B.2.4.

A.3 Key Dates

Questions & Answers: All questions/inquiries must be submitted to the contracting officer via electronic mail (e-mail) not later than 2:00 PM EDT on September 14, 2018. Inquiries submitted via telephone will be re-directed to an e-mail submission. Submit offers and/or any questions to the attention of David Smythe at dsmythe@cdc.gov. Questions will be answered promptly. See D.1.4

Site Visit: CDC Facility – Lawrenceville, GA - September 13, 2018 – 10:00am. See D.1.4

Proposal Due Date: Proposals are due via email on September 17, 2018 5:00 PM EDT. See D.1.4 https://acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%2012_6.html#wp1088488 mailto:VRB7@cdc.gov

A.3.1 Remote Attendance

For those offerors who cannot attend in person, the CDC will allow potential offerors to attend remotely. The presentation by the CDC will presented via Skype. See details below.

Conference CAll - Skype Presentation:

• Conference Call - Conference Call-In and Skype Invite will be made available at request. See Point of Contact below.

• Recording - Skype will be used to record presentation and question period. The recording will be made available to offerors at request. See Point of Contact below.

Schedule - Tentative call time is expected to last no longer than 10:00AM to 11:00AM EDT.

Point of Contract for Conference Number/Skype Invitation and Recording:

David Smythe - Office: 770-488.2782 - Email: dsmythe@cdc.gov

*Recording must be requested no later than 2:00 PM EDT on September 14, 2018.

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 3 of 17

A. Introduction – CDC Request 75D301-18-Q-69405

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION – CDC REQUEST 75D301-18-Q-69405

A.1 PURPOSE

A.2 SUMMARY OF KEY FACTORS & SHIPPING

A.3 KEY DATES

A. INTRODUCTION – CDC REQUEST 75D301-18-Q-69405

B. SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

B.1. LINE ITEMS & DELIVERY

B.2 STATEMENT OF WORK:

B.2.1 BACKGROUND AND NEED

B.2.2. GENERAL SCOPE

B.2.3 Technical Requirements

B.2.4 Task List

B.2.5. Deliverables and Desired Outcomes

B.2.7. Performance Period

C. CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS

C.1 CONTRACT CLAUSES

D. EVALUATION FACTORS

D.1 INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFEROR

D.1.1 Technical Proposal Instructions

D.1.2 Site Visit

D.1.3 Business Proposal Instructions

D.1.4 52.233-2 Service of Protest (Sept 2006)

D.1.5 Inquiries/Contact Information

D.2. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

D.3 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

D.3 EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

D.4 EVALUATION OF BUSINESS PROPOSAL

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 4 of 17

B. SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

B.1. Line Items & Delivery

ITEM SUPPLIES / SERVICES QTY / UNIT UNIT PRICE EXTENDED

PRICE

0001 Temperature Procedure, Validation and Documentation Services

Period of Performance: 09/28/2018 – 12/31/2018

Non-Severable

B.2 Statement of Work:

B.2.1 Background and Need

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) currently supports public health programs through its biorepository activities. The Informatics and Data Science Branch (IDSB) within the Division of Laboratory Systems (DLS) operates the CDC Biorepository (CBR) located in Lawrenceville, Georgia. CBR’s mission is to preserve CDC’s valuable samples and facilitate CDC program activities that are fundamental to public health surveillance, research, and outbreak response. There are approximately 6 million biological and environmental samples maintained by the biorepository. Consistent with CBR’s vision to achieve excellence in biorepository science and to align with continual improvement efforts, CBR is implementing a comprehensive Quality Management System (QMS) and seeking accreditation by the College of American Pathologists (CAP). CAP accreditation will provide CDC programs and stakeholders with confidence in CBR services through an independent assessment of CBR’s commitment to quality, first-class operations, and excellent customer service In addition, CBR wants assurance that its storage containers are maintaining appropriate temperatures for CDC’s valuable sample collections.

CAP Accreditation requires the following:

Calibration and calibration verification of storage equipment

Temperature mapping of temperature-controlled storage units

Thermometer verification

Electrical grounding inspection

To meet the CAP and standard QMS requirements, a validation of the temperature-controlled units must be performed. At a minimum, the validation must include system installation verification as well as operation and performance qualifications for in use and new unit

B.2.2. General Scope

To develop procedures for freezer validation that meet or exceed industry standards.

To validate, in accordance with established procedures, CBR temperature-controlled storage units.

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 5 of 17

To prepare successful validation documentation packages to support CBR CAP accreditation.

Validation of temperature-controlled storage units must be performed by experienced and qualified personnel using certified and calibrated equipment. Site-appropriate procedures and acceptance criteria that meet manufacturer recommendations and industry standards for quality must be developed. Upon approval by CBR staff, the temperature validation plans will be implemented within the agreed upon timeframe. Full documentation of successful validation will be prepared and delivered to CDC.

The validation will be performed on 32 liquid nitrogen storage units and 32 mechanical freezers at various set-point temperatures (-20°C, -50°C, -70°C, & -80°C). The temperature-controlled storage units are located on the

Lawrenceville Campus:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

602 Webb Gin House Rd.

Lawrenceville, GA 30045

B.2.3 Technical Requirements A. Temperature measurement devices must be appropriate for various types of storage units, including refrigerators, liquid nitrogen, and mechanical freezers with multiple set-point temperatures (-20°C, -

50°C, -70°C & -80°C), must be certified and calibrated to a national or international standard (e.g., NIST), and include a self-contained system for transferring and analyzing the data.

B. The contractor must be experienced performing installation verification, and operational/performance qualifications including but not limited to calibration verification and calibration, temperature mapping, thermometer verification and validation for various types of temperature storage units.

C. The contractor must have experience working in liquid nitrogen environment and be familiar with the associated risks.

D. The contractor must provide documented verification of personnel training and experience for performing the validations.

E.All services provided by the contractor must be completed on-site.

F. The contractor must be ISO 17025 accredited.

B.2.4 Task List A. The contractor shall perform pre and post temperature verification on the certified and calibrated measuring devices used for the validations.

B. The contractor shall generate the protocols and acceptance criteria needed for temperature controlled unit validation for each temperature storage unit model. At a minimum the validation protocols must include:

Unit identification and verification

Utility/Electrical verification including but not limited sub-system/component voltage check, breaker/outlet information and critical component check.

Environmental control and conditions inspection (e.g. temperature, humidity etc.)

Installation verification including but not limited to inspections of equipment clearance, facility

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 6 of 17 conditions, preventative maintenance schedule, unit settings, and unit/accessory conditions.

Operational/Performance qualification including:

o Control panel tests and checks o Alarm system tests and checks o Temperature recovery assessment o Power failure tests and checks o Calibration verifications for each measurement device installed or used to measure the unit temperature or liquid nitrogen level. Calibrations shall be performed in accordance with manufacturer or industry best practices.

o Thermometer verification o Temperature mapping which shall include at least 12 sensors throughout the unit and 1 sensor adjacent to the unit monitoring device and measured at a minimum of every 5 minutes over a 24 hour period.

C. The contractor shall perform a validation for each unit, which includes performing calibrations, measuring and verifying the temperature throughout the unit by temperature mapping, verifying the thermometers, as well as performing other system tests and verifications for each unit.

D. The contractor shall record and report any discrepancies and provide recommendations to resolve related issues based on industry best practices.

E.The contractor will provide recommendations for the placement location of the devices to be used by the CDC SampleGuard (temperature monitoring system) application. These devices will be placed in addition to the internal or external unit temperature devices.

B.2.5. Deliverables and Desired Outcomes

Report/Deliverable Format Recipients

Receipt Location Frequency/Due Date

Work breakdown structure for each Task in section 4.

MS Office Product

COR-

Technical Monitor

Electronic Within 7 days of contract award

Startup meeting briefing to include schedule

MS Office Product

COR-

Technical Monitor

CDC

Office/Conference Call

Within 7 days of contract award

Personnel Training Records Hardcopy and MS Office Product, or

PDF

COR-

Technical Monitor

CDC Office and Electronic

Within 7 days of contract award

Measuring Device Certification and

Hardcopy and MS

COR-

Technical

CDC Office and Electronic

Within 7 days of contract award

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 7 of 17

Calibration Records Office Product, or

PDF

Monitor

Proposed Protocols and Acceptance criteria

Hardcopy and MS Office Product

COR-

Technical Monitor

CDC Office and Electronic

Within 7 days of contract award

Discrepancy and Recommendation Report

Hardcopy and MS Office Product or

PDF

COR-

Technical Monitor

CDC Office and Electronic

Within 14 days after completion of project

Temperature Measurement Device Placement Recommendation Report

Hardcopy and MS Office Product

COR-

Technical Monitor

CDC Office and Electronic

Within 14 days after completion of project

Final report for each storage unit to include a summary of the results, as found conditions, specific measurements, acceptance criteria and pass/fail for the specified task.

Hardcopy and MS Office Product or

PDF

COR-

Technical Monitor

CDC Office or Electronic

Within 14 days after completion of project

Desired Outcomes

Required Services

SLA

Performance

Standard (completeness, cost, reliability, accuracy, timeliness, quality)

Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Monitoring Method (Quality

Assurance Surveillance Plan/QASP)

Incentives/ Disincentives

Meets and complies with defined requirements as approved by the COR and Technical Monitor

Execute/ perform all required tasks according to approved schedule.

All required milestones and deliverables will be achieved within agreed-upon schedule as specified in Technical Assistance Plan, Maintenance Plan.

No deviation without COR approval.

Review of status report by the COR and

TM

Favorable or Unfavorable Performance Evaluation

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 8 of 17

Required Services

SLA

Performance

Standard (completeness, cost, reliability, accuracy, timeliness, quality)

Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Monitoring Method (Quality

Assurance Surveillance Plan/QASP)

Incentives/ Disincentives

Demonstrabl e progress on tasks outlined in the SOW within the approved budget

Provide project status reports to the

COR

Written reports by the Friday of each week;

Each week, the project schedule and cost are to be within +/-10% variance of the projected costs outlined in the approved budget. PWS tasks are performed to the satisfaction of technical monitor.

Weekly reporting of performance;

Periodic reviews of selected projects;

Review of Corrective Action Plan and monitoring performance against that Plan; and Observations;

and staff feedback

Favorable or Unfavorable Performance Evaluation

Weekly meetings with COR and TM; delivery of weekly status report.

Participate in regular with COR and TM

Attendance at all meetings over the project year(s).

Able to discuss the status of all projects and activities at each monthly meeting.

Attendance at meetings by senior contract staff, with monthly reports outlining progress, risks, costs and other mutually agreed upon information.

Favorable or Unfavorable Performance Evaluation

Timely Response to communicati on requests

Response Time for communicatio n requests

Email=

Within 1 hr

Phone=

Within 1 hr

In Person=

Respond to all requests for communication within specified time frames

Acknowledge all communication requests within one hour;

resolution within five hours; Be available for in person meeting within two hour of request time

Report response times in monthly report

Favorable or Unfavorable Performance Evaluation

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 9 of 17

Required Services

SLA

Performance

Standard (completeness, cost, reliability, accuracy, timeliness, quality)

Acceptable Quality Level

(AQL)

Monitoring Method (Quality

Assurance Surveillance Plan/QASP)

Incentives/ Disincentives

Within 1hr

B.2.7. Performance Period The project must be completed by 12/17/2018 so that the final reports can be submitted before the end of the performance period which shall be from 09/28/2018 through 12/31/2018.

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 10 of 17

C. CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS

C.1 Contract Clauses

52.252-2 Clauses Incorporated by Reference (Feb 1998)

This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Also, the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

The Offeror shall comply with the following commercial item terms and conditions, which are incorporated herein by reference: FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition; FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications - Commercial Items - the offeror shall submit a completed copy of the listed representations and certifications; FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial Items; FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-Commercial Items. FAR 52.212-5 paragraph (a) and the following clauses in paragraph (b) are being incorporated in this contract by reference to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to this acquisition: 52.204-7, 52.204-10, 52.204-13, 52.209-6, 52.209-10, 52.222-3, 52.219-6, 52.219-13, 52.222-19, 52.222-21, 52.222-26, 52.222-36, 52.223-18, 52.225-13, and 52.232-33.

The Offeror shall comply with the following FAR clauses, which are incorporated herein by reference: 52.242-15, 52.243-1 with Alternative I (Apr 1984). The full text of the referenced FAR clauses may be accessed electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/far/ The Offeror shall comply with the following HHSAR clauses, which are incorporated herein by reference:

352.222-70 and 352.227-70. The full text of the referenced HHSAR clauses may be accessed electronically at http://www.hhs.gov/regulations/ .

In addition, the Offeror shall comply with the following FAR and CDC local clauses incorporated herein in full text.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/ http://www.hhs.gov/regulations/

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 11 of 17

D. EVALUATION FACTORS

D.1 Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offeror

D.1.1 Technical Proposal Instructions

(a) The technical proposal should be in enough detail to reflect a clear understanding of the nature of the work being undertaken and should address each of the Technical Evaluation Criteria in Section D.1.

(b) The technical proposals shall not contain reference to cost; however, information such as packaging dimensions/specifications and substitute documentation shall be referenced in the technical proposal so the Government has sufficient information to evaluate the product. The narrative plan shall include a general approach and key deadline dates. Provide detailed information to support a Government determination of suitability and sizing of product and specific shipping information.

The technical proposal should succinctly address the evaluation criteria at Section D and shall not exceed 20 pages in length. Dimensions, specifications, packaging, and product information do not count against the maximum length of 20 pages. All electronic submissions shall be compatible with MS Office 2003 (1 copy) and Adobe 8.0 (1 copy).

In addition, vendor shall provide the following in their proposal for consideration; if this documentation is not submitted, vendor will be deemed ineligible for award and/or award of particular line item(s):

D.1.2 Site Visit Location:

CDC Lawrenceville Campus:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 602 Webb Gin House Rd.

Lawrenceville, GA 30045

Date & Time: September 13th, 2018 at 10:00am EDT. The government anticipates the site visit will last approximately 2 hours and will not allow more than 4 hours.

Security: In order to have access to the Lawrenceville Campus, offerors must submit the required identifying information to the contracting officer no later than 10:00am on Tuesday, September 11, 2018 EDT (48 hours in advance) of the Thursday site vist. All identifying information will be verified with your indentification documentation (below) the morning of site visit. Due to the time constraints, attendees must be U.S. citizens.

Required Information: Full name (first, middle and last name), contractor representing, U.S citizenship.

Indentification Documentations: Current (unexpired) official government issue driver’s license or U.S.

Passport.

Submit Information to: Contracting Officer, David Smythe at dsmythe@cdc.gov.

D.1.3 Business Proposal Instructions The business proposal shall not exceed 20 pages and shall reflect all cost/price information per proposed upon CLIN as delineated in section B.

All shipping costs shall be included in the per unit price.

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 12 of 17

D.1.4 52.233-2 Service of Protest (Sept 2006)

(a) Protests, as defined in section 31.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from:

Office of Acquisition Services (OAS) ATTN: David Smythe Acquisition and Assistance Branch 2 University Office Park, Colgate Building 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341

(b) The copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one day of filing a protest with the GAO.

D.1.4.1 Remote Attendance

For those offerors who cannot attend in person, the CDC will allow potential offerors to attend remotely. The presentation by the CDC will presented via Skype. See details below.

Conference CAll - Skype Presentation:

• Conference Call - Conference Call-In and Skype Invite will be made available at request. See Point of Contact below.

• Recording - Skype will be used to record presentation and question period. The recording will be made available to offerors at request. See Point of Contact below.

Schedule - Tentative call time is expected to last no longer than 10:00AM to 11:00AM EDT.

Point of Contract for Conference Number/Skype Invitation and Recording:

David Smythe - Office: 770-488.2782 - Email: dsmythe@cdc.gov

*Recording must be requested no later than 2:00 PM EDT on September 14, 2018.

D.1.5 Inquiries/Contact Information

Questions & Answers: All questions/inquiries must be submitted to the contracting officer via electronic mail (e-mail) not later than 2:00 PM EDT on September 14, 2018. Inquiries submitted via telephone will be re-directed to an e-mail submission. Submit offers and/or any questions to the attention of David Smythe at dsmythe@cdc.gov. Questions will be answered promptly. See D.1.4

Site Visit: CDC Facility – Lawrenceville, GA - September 13, 2018 – 10:00am. See D.1.4

Proposal Due Date: Proposals are due via email on September 17, 2018 5:00 PM EDT. See D.1.4

D.2. Technical Evaluation Factors

Pass/Fail Criteria

Standard

ISO 17025 Accreditation Pass/Fail

Section B.2.3 Pass/Fail

The Proposal must address the following subfactors:

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%2031_1.html#wp1089550 mailto:dsmythe@cdc.gov mailto:VRB7@cdc.gov

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 13 of 17

Award Technical Evaluation: The below are the technical evaluation criteria in order from most important to least important.

Criteria Technical Approach and Understanding Similar Experience & Past Performance Staffing and Management Plan

1. Technical Approach and Understanding: The Offeror shall provide an analysis of the requirements to indicate their understanding of each task requirements, operating environment and the task order objectives as opposed to a reiteration of information included in Sections B.2.3 – B.2.5. The Offeror shall provide a description of the performance techniques and methodology they propose in performance of this task. The Offeror shall specifically address aspects such as technical understanding, methodology and approach, along with the sub-factors listed below.

a. Provide a detailed and comprehensive statement of the scope and purpose of the project(s) to demonstrate complete understanding of the intent and requirements of the contract and potential problems that may be encountered

b. Demonstrate his or her ability to perform the required service and how you will meet the intended outcomes using details and examples pertinent to your organization as opposed to a reiteration of information included in the SOW.

c. Discuss the plan and solutions for overcoming difficulties involved with performing the work requirements.

d. Discuss Tasks and requirements in sections B.2.3 – B.2.5, your understanding and your approach to achieving the requirements set forth.

2. Staffing and Management Plan: The Offeror shall demonstrate an overall understanding of the project and adequacy and feasibility of plans to address all items in the task order statement of work. This includes the detailed description of specific tasks to be performed, methods and resources to be used, including staffing, and a discussion of problems likely to occur and plans for addressing them.

a. The Offeror shall describe their organizational structure and how they propose to manage this requirement, including a discussion of potential issues;

g. The Offeror shall provide a description of the Offeror’s approach to rapidly obtain and/or replace qualified staffing resources to support existing and new task order work and to meet changing workload requirements.

h. The offeror shall identify and provided a resume for all key personnel and subcontractor key personnel/ consultants that describe their experience, education, skills, and qualifications relative to the tasks necessary to accomplish the contract objectives. The offeror shall also identify their roles and responsibilities and explain how such key personnel will be used to accomplish specific tasks relative to their individual capabilities and experience.

i. Project Management Plan -The offeror shall develop a written work plan, minimally including all essential interim and final deliverables, key staff responsible for tasks (including contractor, DSNS or other partners), schedule of key deadlines (including review cycles and absolute No Later Than (NLT) dates for key activities and deliverables). The work plan must contain:

i. A series of specific reports and activities proposed by the contractor following the kick-off meeting, to be developed by the contractor during the course of the project, inclusive of the

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 14 of 17 contractor’s plan for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of services to assure high quality performance and customer satisfaction.

ii. Contractor plan for employee management including how the contractor will avoid any appearances of personal services by the CDC.

3. Similar Experience: The Offeror shall provide a description of at least one project performed within the past three years that clearly demonstrates the Offeror’s experience in performing projects of similar scope, size and complexity to the requirements described in the RFP. The following information shall be provided for each project reference:

a. Contract number, customer/agency name and contract title;

b. Brief narrative description of the work performed for each of those contracts, including a description of how the previous work demonstrates the Offeror’s capacity to successfully meet the requirements described in the RFP and a discussion of any problems encountered/corrective actions and significant accomplishments;

c. Dollar value, contract type, period of performance, place of performance, and the number and types of personnel used in the performance of the contract;

d. Demonstrated experience in providing support of handling DEA controlled items.

e. Demonstrated experience in relabeling and repackaging pharmaceuticals.

f. Demonstrated experience in providing pharmaceutical cGMP.

You shall submit one (1) copy via e-mail to David Smythe, dsmythe@cdc.gov Closing Date of the RFP. Subject:

(Company Name) Proposal to RFQ# 75D301-18-Q-69405. The electronic files shall be compatible with MS Office 2003 and Adobe 8.0.

D.3 Past Performance Evaluation Past performance information will be evaluated in the following manner:

D.2.1 Each Offeror shall be evaluated on its past performance under current and prior contracts. By past performance, the Government means the Offeror’s record of conforming to specifications and to standards of good workmanship; the Contractor's record of forecasting and controlling costs; the Offeror’s adherence to contract schedules and terms, including the 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 interest of the customer and the degree of quality of deliverables and performance.

D.2.2 Past performance will not be scored, but the Government's conclusions about overall quality of the Offeror's past performance will be highly influential in determining the relative merits of the Offeror's proposal and in selecting the Offeror whose proposal is considered the most advantageous/best value to the Government.

D.2.3 The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance for similar services relative to the size and complexity of the procurement under consideration.

D.2.4 The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror's past performance based on collaborated past performance evaluations included in the Offeror’s proposal and/or other information obtained from references provided by the Offeror, as well as other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government. The Government may or may not survey all contracts listed by the Offeror, and reserves the right to perform customer surveys only for those contracts deemed by the Government to be most relevant to this procurement. The information provided by the Offeror in accordance with provision mailto:dsmythe@cdc.gov

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 15 of 17

“Submission of Past Performance Information” will be used by the Government to gather required past performance evaluations.

D.2.5 Evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will not be based on absolute standards of acceptable performance.

D.2.6 The assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the Offeror and the other competitors. Thus, an Offeror with an exceptional record of relevant past performance may receive a more favorable evaluation than another whose record is acceptable and/or less relevant, even though both may have acceptable technical and business proposals.

D.2.7 An Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

D.2.8 Information provided by Offeror, as requested under Section D herein, relating to problems encountered on the identified contracts and the Offeror’s corrective actions will be considered when unfavorable reports of past performance are received. If award will be made without conducting discussions, Offeror may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of past performance information (e.g. relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information and averse past performance which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond). Communications may be held with Offeror to obtain additional information regarding adverse past performance when required for making a competitive range determination. If discussions are held, Offeror will be given an opportunity to address unfavorable reports of past performance. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented.

D.2.9 Past performance will be evaluated for only those Offeror remaining in the competitive range after completion of the review of the business proposals and technical proposals.

D.2.10 Evaluation of past performance information will be reflected in terms of the following degrees of performance assessment:

D.2.10.1 Excellent: A significant majority of the sources of information are consistently firm in stating that the Offeror’s performance was superior and that they would unhesitatingly do business with the Offeror again.

Complaints are negligible or unfounded. The Offeror has no record of criminal conduct, civil fraud, or negligence, or the record is old and the Offeror has demonstrated by more recent performance that corrective action has made the likelihood of such conduct in the future highly improbably. No doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the Government’s requirements as stated in the RFP.

D.2.10.2 Good: Most sources of information state that the Offeror’s performance was good, better than average, etc., and that they would willingly do business with the Offeror again. Complaints, though perhaps well-founded, are few and relatively minor. The Offeror has no record of criminal conduct, civil fraud, or negligence, or the record is old and the Offeror has demonstrated by more recent performance that corrective action has made the likelihood of such conduct in the future highly improbable. Little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the Government’s requirements as stated in the RFP.

D.2.10.3 Neutral: Either no past performance history exists for the corporation, predecessor companies, key personnel, or major/critical subcontractors, or the Offeror’s record of past performance was neither predominantly favorable nor unfavorable. In the latter case, sources of information are roughly divided over the quality of the Offeror’s performance. While some state that they would do business with the Offeror again, 75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 16 of 17 others are doubtful or would not. Complaints are balanced by reports of good work. The Offeror has no record of criminal conduct, civil fraud, or negligence, or the record is old.

D.2.10.4 Marginal: Many sources of information made unfavorable reports about the Offeror’s performance and either express serious doubts about doing business with the Offeror again or state that they would refuse to do so. However, there are some favorable reports, and some sources of information indicate that they would do business with the Offeror again. There are many significant, serious, and well-founded complaints, but there are some reports of very good performance. The Offeror may have been indicted, pled guilty, or may have been found guilty in matters of criminal conduct, but the issues are either unresolved, relatively minor, or do not reflect a company-wide or managerial pattern of wrongdoing. The Offeror may have lost civil suits for fraud or negligence, but there is no company-wide or managerial pattern of fraudulent, negligent, or criminal conduct.

Some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the Government’s requirements as stated in the

RFP.

D.2.10.5 Poor: A significant majority of sources of information are consistently firm in stating that the Offeror’s performance was entirely unsatisfactory and that they would not do business with the Offeror again under any circumstances. Customer complaints are substantial or numerous and are well founded. Or, although not debarred or suspended, the Offeror is under indictment or has been convicted of criminal conduct, or has been found civilly liable for fraud or negligence. The Offeror either has presented no persuasive evidence of having taken appropriate corrective action that will guard against such conduct in the foreseeable future, or it appears unlikely that the corrective action will be effective. Serious doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the Government requirements as stated in the RFP.

(End of Provision)

D.3 Evaluation of Technical Proposal

D.3.1 The Government will evaluate offers on the basis of “pass” or “fail” based on the following evaluation factors:

The technical evaluation sub-factors and evaluation criteria are as follows:

D.4 Evaluation of Business Proposal

D.4.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices to determine price reasonableness for proposed work.

D.4.2 A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the Offeror if acceptable within the time for acceptance specified in the offer shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the Offeror's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

D.4.3 Technical Strength more Important than Price Offerors are advised that in proposal evaluation paramount consideration shall be given to technical proposals rather than to price unless, as a result of technical evaluations, proposals are judged to be essentially equal, in which case price shall become the determining factor.

Award shall be made to that responsible offeror submitting the proposal (Technical and Business) determined to be the most advantageous and the best value to the Government as evaluated under the criteria described in this Section

75D301-18-Q-69405 - Page 17 of 17