ATTACHMENT_2_-_REFERRAL_MANAGEMENT_(SEC_M).pdf

ATTACHMENT 2 - SOLICITATION #FA8052-14-R-0013

FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ADDENDA TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED

INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. THIS ADDENDA SUPPLEMENTS FAR 52.212-2.

M-I. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Past Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT)

A. Basis for Contract Award.

1. This is a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, procedures as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). This source selection will follow a Performance Price Tradeoff source selection process in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, in which competing Offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations.

2. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors.

3. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the offeror with the highest rated past performance. The Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

4. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. However, in accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 15.306, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to conduct them. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and Offerors will be notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR Part 15.306 (c)(2). If the Government awards without discussions, the Offeror’s may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor clerical errors.

The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest.

B. Award Process.

1. Basic Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The Government intends to award up to three (3) IDIQ contracts as a result of this solicitation. Award will be made to Offerors, whose offer, after evaluation, is deemed the best overall value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation criteria in section C., below.

2. The Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) under this effort will be awarded by regions.

Exhibit 1, Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) by Region, identifies the MTFs assigned to each region. Contract award under this solicitation will result in the initial award of up to three (3) basic IDIQ contracts and the Task Order (TO) for the West Region.

3. Award of the basic IDIQ contracts will be based on the proposals submitted for the West Region; those same proposals will be used for the evaluation and award of the TO for the West Region. Successful Offerors of the basic IDIQ awards will be issued an initial task order for attendance to the post award conference. Following the post award conference, a TO will be issued for the West Region amongst the IDIQ awardees, based on a best value past performance price tradeoff with past performance being significantly more important than price. The Government will then make a separate request for proposal for the South Region, followed by evaluation and award of the TO for the South Region. Upon award of the South Region, a separate request for proposal for the North Region will be made, followed by the evaluation and award of the TO for the North Region. Award of all TOs will be based on a best value past performance price tradeoff with past performance being significantly more important than price.

Offerors shall not submit pricing for the North and South Regions as part of this solicitation.

4. An Offeror is not guaranteed award of a TO (award of a Region) after award of the basic Referral Management IDIQ contract. There is a potential there will not be any additional TOs awarded against these IDIQ contracts, following award of the three Regional (West, South, and North) TOs.

5. In the future, should services for any MTF or region need to be re-competed due to the performance failure of an Offeror or should the Government add a new MTF(s), the MTF(s) may be competed amongst the existing IDIQ awardees. The methodology for the basis of award shall be the same as that which is used for the basic IDIQ and initial task orders.

C. Evaluation Criteria

1. The Government will evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability. The Government will also perform an evaluation of past performance and price. Award of up to three (3) basic IDIQ contracts will be made to technically acceptable Offerors that represent the best value with past performance being significantly more important than price.

2. The proposals will be evaluated based on the following three (3) evaluation factor(s) and five (5) sub-factors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Sub-factor 1: Staffing Plan

Sub-factor 2: Training Plan Sub-factor 3: Operations Plan Sub-factor 4: Contingency Plan Sub-factor 5: Transition Plan Factor 2: Price Factor 3: Past Performance Confidence Assessment

(a) Factor 1 - Technical Acceptability. The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. The technical approach will be evaluated for evidence of the degree to which the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of Referral Management Service as it relates to the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) and as defined within the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Attachment 4 of this solicitation. Proposals should display a clear understanding and reasonable, well-thought-out approach, that demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of all tasks to be performed, as well as, the technical approach and methodology for accomplishing all tasks under any resultant award to meet the requirements of the PWS. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following factor and sub-factors:

Sub-Factor 1 – Staffing Plan. The Staffing Plan shall ensure that the contractor can find, qualify, and retain personnel to work in the referral management centers in all geographic locations identified in Appendix A of the PWS.

Description: The staffing plan describes how the contractor will research the economic conditions in all of the geographic areas to ensure that qualified personnel can be hired and retained at the prices that the contractor bids for the work.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates the evaluated areas below:

a) Detailed staffing plan to ensure performance of all services required by the PWS;

(PWS 2.2.5.)

b) Contractor applies staffing processes (research economic conditions, qualification, and retention) to geographic locations identified in PWS Appendix A. (PWS 2.2.5.)

c) Shows a flowchart of the process for research of economic data (to include Service

Contract Act) and how the flowchart is applied to the Offerors price proposal.

(PWS 2.2.5.)

d) The staffing plan describes how turnover of staff will be minimized (PWS 2.2.5.)

Sub-Factor 2 – Training Plan. The Offeror’s Training plan shall ensure initial and ongoing training for RMC staff on the Air Force Referral Management Program, associated information systems, and regulatory guidance used in providing referral management services.

Description: The training plan ensures that all Referral Management Center (RMC) staff are trained and knowledgeable on the Referral Management program and associated systems.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a training plan that ensures:

a) Completion of all required initial and ongoing Referral Management training to employees to include Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

(PWS 2.1.1.2.; 2.1.1.3.; 2.2.4.3; 3.3.; 3.5.1.; 3.7.; 5.3.; Appendix D )

b) Verification of required initial and ongoing qualifying factors to include nursing licensure (PWS 3.2.2.4.; 3.3.)

Sub-Factor 3 – Operations Plan. The Offeror’s Operations Plan shall ensure accuracy in referral management processes and outcomes.

Description: The operations plan ensures that referral management processes are complete, timely, and accurate.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

a) An organizational structure sufficient to manage the program (PWS 1.2.)

b) Quality assurance measures associated with the program that addresses:

1. How specialty care appointments will be accurately scheduled. (PWS 2.1.2.3.)

2. How administrative completeness and appropriateness of referrals is ensured.

(PWS 2.1.2.1.; 2.1.2.2.; 2.1.2.3.)

3. How Referrals and Right of First Refusal (ROFR) requests are processed within priority standards and timelines. (PWS 2.1.2.7.)

4. How clear and legible reports are returned to the referring provider within the required timelines. (PWS 2.1.3.5.; 2.1.2.6.3.)

5. How referral results/reports (CLRs) are retrieved within 120 calendar days

(PWS 2.1.3.2)

6. How the contractor ensures accurate data is entered into the correct patient record within 3 business days. (PWS 2.1.3.3.)

7. How the contractor ensures the correct naming convention is used.

(PWS 2.1.2.14)

8. How the contractor ensures accurate referral management reports.

(PWS 2.1.3.8.)

9. How the contractor ensures courteous customer service.

(PWS 2.1.5.1.; 2.1.5.3.)

10. How the contractor manages currency of qualifying factors. (PWS 3.3.2 )

c) Clearly defined roles and responsibilities to mitigate issues amongst employees

(PWS 2.2.2.)

Sub-Factor 4 – Contingency Plan. The Offeror’s Contingency Plan shall ensure continuous operations of all Medical Treatment Facilities (MTF) Referral Management Centers (RMC).

Description: The Contingency Plan ensures that continuity of operations for all MTF RMCs are maintained during staffing shortages, equipment or communication failures, or other delays.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes:

a) How continuity of operations are maintained during staffing shortages, equipment or communication failures. (PWS 1.2.1.; 2.2.3.)

b) For those MTFs staffed with one (1) individual, the plan must include a specific, measurable strategy for accomplishing all requirements listed in the PWS during staffing shortages. (PWS 1.2.1.; 2.2.3.1.)

c) How the contingency plan does not rely on the Government to ensure continuity of operations. (PWS 1.2.1.; 2.2.3.)

Sub-Factor 5 – Transition Plan. The Offeror’s Transition Plan shall ensure no gaps in service at the MTF.

Description: The transition plan ensures that personnel are hired, trained and capable of beginning performance on the first day of the contract period of performance.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal is able to show the evaluated areas below.

a) Provide a transition phase-in plan that details what actions the Contractor will take to ensure their employees are prepared to begin performance for all services required under this PWS along with the process to minimize disruption in services throughout the transition. (PWS 2.2.1.1) Provide a transition phase-out plan that describes in detail, what actions the Contractor will take to ensure a smooth and successful transition of operations between this contract and the next contract provider. (PWS 2.2.1.2.)

b) Describes how the contractor will facilitate the security clearance process to reduce a disruption of service. (PWS 5.1.)

c) Describes how incumbent personnel will be offered first right of refusal in accordance with FAR 52.222-17.

Technical Factor Rating. The Technical Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined in, Table 1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. An offer rated as technically unacceptable in any sub-factor will result in an overall rating of unacceptable and will not be eligible for award.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Proposals that are technically acceptable or subject to being made technically acceptable, without major proposal revisions, shall be evaluated for price and past performance.

Those that are not technically acceptable or capable of being made technically acceptable, without major proposal revisions, may be removed from the competition.

(b) Factor 2 - Price Evaluation. Following an evaluation of technical acceptability, the

Government shall rank all technically acceptable offers and those offers that can be made technically acceptable without major proposal revisions, by the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) submitted within the Referral Management Pricing Matrix, Attachment 3, of this solicitation. The Government will use this information (Attachment 3) to evaluate an Offeror’s proposal for price reasonableness, realism, balance, and completeness.

a. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for reasonableness through the use of price analysis. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), the Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Some of those techniques include, but are not limited to, comparison of the proposed TEP with the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and/or a comparison of the TEP amongst all Offerors. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. An Offeror who submits a price proposal that is determined to be unreasonable may be eliminated from the competition. An Offeror who submits a price proposal that is determined to be unreasonable following discussions, is not awardable, and will be eliminated from the competition.

Price reasonableness will be evaluated based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of the proposal within Attachment 3 of this solicitation. For the purposes of evaluation, the TEP is the total price to perform the requirement;

it includes all option periods and the extension of services (see FAR 52.217- 8). Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

b. The Government will also evaluate price proposals for price realism to protect against unrealistically low prices and the risks to performance that potentially may result. The Government will independently review and evaluate specific price elements of each Offeror’s proposed price to determine whether the proposed price elements: 1) are realistic for the work to be performed; 2) reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and 3) are consistent with the methods and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

Price realism will be evaluated based on the individual pricing for the Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) along with the proposed staffing models at the MTFs within Attachment 3 of this solicitation. The individual pricing for the MTFs will also be used as a baseline for future contract actions, such as administrative modifications, de-scope actions, and terminations.

The Government will consider an Offeror’s submission of an unrealistically low-priced proposal to reflect a lack of the Offeror’s understanding of the technical requirements or risk associated with their proposal. An Offeror who submits a price proposal that is determined to be unrealistic may be eliminated from the competition. An Offeror who submits a price proposal that is determined to be unrealistic following discussions, is not awardable, and will be eliminated from the competition.

c. The Government may not award a contract based on a proposal with unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite a reasonable and realistic TEP, the price of one or more of the price elements is significantly over or understated, as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The burden of proof for balance of proposed prices rests with the Offeror. An Offeror who submits a price proposal that is determined to be unbalanced may be eliminated from the competition.

d. The Offeror is required to submit a price for all MTFs in the Western Region on the Referral Management Pricing Matrix, Attachment 3. An Offeror’s price proposal that fails to meet this requirement will be determined to be incomplete and may be eliminated from the competition. An Offeror’s price proposal that fails to meet this requirement following discussions, will be determined to be incomplete, and will be eliminated from the competition.

(c) Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on (1) the past performance information provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The purpose of the past performance assessment is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance.

Recent Performance. For the purposes of evaluation under this solicitation, the relevant effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The ongoing and/or performed effort must be at least 12 months in duration.

Relevant Performance. To be relevant, past performance must include efforts involving Referral Management Services that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to efforts this solicitation requires. Table 2 - Relevancy Determination, illustrates how the

Government will assess past performance with regard to scope, magnitude and complexity.

Table 2. Relevancy Determination Rating Definition Very Relevant Past performance effort involved:

• Patient referral management services performed in DoD facilities (i.e. Army, Navy, Air Force, TMA, OSD/HA) AND

• Services provided for multiple hospitals/clinics in multiple states unless all the hospitals/clinics are within one 50 mile diameter regional area (example: Washington DC Metro area) AND

• Total contract value (including all options) exceeds $7.5M Relevant Past performance effort involved:

• Patient referral management services performed for DoD or other Federal Agencies (i.e. VA) AND

• Services provided for one or more hospitals/clinics AND

• Total contract value (including all options) was at least

$500K and up to $7.5M Somewhat Relevant Past performance involved:

• Staffing of nurses, licensed practical nurses or administrative clerks in medical settings that are not referral management centers in Federal or non-Federal facilities AND

• Services provided for a single hospital or clinic AND

• Total contract value (including all options) was at least

$100K up to $500K Not Relevant Past Performance Involved:

• Non-medical referral management programs and non-medical staffing are not relevant OR

• Total contract value (including all options) less than $100K

OR

• Services provided to other than a hospital or clinic

a. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence (Neutral) as defined in Table 3, below. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or a performance record so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

b. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to the past performance information on those contracts deemed most relevant and recent to the effort described in this solicitation.

c. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in addendum to provision FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, Attachment 1, of this solicitation. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

(End of Provision)

EXHIBIT 1 – Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) by Region

North Region Joint Base Andrews, MD Joint Base McGuire, NJ Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, Washington, DC Scott AFB, IL Langley AFB, VA Dover AFB, DE Hanscom AFB, MA

South Region

Altus AFB, OK Laughlin AFB, TX Seymour-Johnson AFB, NC Barksdale AFB, LA Little Rock AFB, AK Shaw AFB, SC Charleston AFB, SC MacDill AFB, FL Sheppard AFB, TX Columbus AFB, MS Maxwell AFB, AL Tinker AFB, OK

Dyess AFB, TX Moody AFB, GA Tyndall AFB, FL Goodfellow AFB, TX Patrick AFB, FL Vance AFB, OK

Hurlburt Field AFB, FL Randolph AFB, TX Keesler AFB, MS Robins AFB, GA

West Region

Beale AFB, CA F.E. Warren AFB, WY Joint Base McChord, WA Buckley AFB, CO Grand Forks AFB, ND Minot AFB, ND

Cannon AFB, NM Joint Base Pearl Harbor-

Hickam, HI Mt Home AFB, ID

Davis Monthan AFB, AZ Hill AFB, UT Nellis AFB, NV

Edwards AFB, CA Holloman AFB, NM

Offutt AFB, NE

Eielson AFB, AK Kirtland AFB, NM

Peterson AFB, CO

Ellsworth AFB, SD

Los Angeles AFB, CA Travis AFB, CA

Elmendorf AFB, AK Luke AFB, AZ Vandenberg AFB, CA

Fairchild AFB, WA Malmstrom AFB, MT Whiteman AFB, MO