Attach 1_Instructions to Offerors_Evaluation Criteria_23-R-0018.docx

8 February 2022 W81K00-22-R-0002

8 February 2022 W81K00-22-R-0002

W81K00-23-R-0018

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

Offerors shall submit proposals in electronic form via email no later than 10:00 A.M., Central Time (CT) (San Antonio, Texas), 27 September 2023. The points of contact are Mr. Patrick Thielemann, Contract Specialist, at patrick.a.thielemann.civ@health.mil and Ms. Salameya Paulouskaya, Contracting Officer, at salameya.paulouskaya2.civ@health.mil.

Offers shall be submitted via e-mail only. Proposals received after 10:00 A.M., CT on 27 September 2023 will be late and will not be considered for award. Failure to submit the required documentation as specified in the following paragraphs will make the Offeror non-compliant and ineligible for award. It is vital that Offerors follow instructions provided and adhere to page limits specified.

Questions shall be submitted via e-mail to Mr. Patrick Thielemann (patrick.a.thielemann.civ@health.mil) and Ms. Salameya Paulouskaya (salameya.paulouskaya2.civ@health.mil) not later than 10:00 A.M., CT 12 September 2023. No questions will be entertained after this date. Do NOT submit multiple emails for questions. Answers to vendor questions will be posted to SAM.gov.

Note: Only electronic (e-mail) proposals will be accepted. Offers submitted by any other method are unacceptable. Each volume shall be submitted as a separate file in .pdf format, with the files names clearly identifying the volume number and contractor’s name. Pricing shall be submitted on the Excel spreadsheet attached to the solicitation (Attachment 4), renamed with the same naming convention. A .pdf of pricing is not required. Pricing information shall be included in Volume IV – Pricing only and shall not be included or summarized in any other volume. The proposal shall not contain any extraneous information such as advertisements or marketing information.

Files larger than 20MB may need to be transmitted in separate emails. All emails, regardless of size, need to be received by the Government server, by the stated submission deadline. The Government will not be responsible for any failure of transmission or receipt of the proposal, or any failure of the Offeror to verify receipt of the emailed proposal. All proposals submitted after the deadline will be considered untimely and ineligible for award.

The proposal shall be clear, concise and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiation of the validity of stated claims. Responses to this solicitation shall strictly adhere to the requirements set forth in the solicitation. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms for past performance, compensation, and price. Submissions that do not adhere to format and content requirements may be considered non-complaint. The Government reserves the right to eliminate any such proposals from consideration for award.

It is the offeror's responsibility to identify any changes in point of contact during the acquisition.

The proposal shall be prepared in four (4) separate volumes as follows.

· Volume I – Administrative

· Volume II – Technical

· Volume III – Past Performance

· Volume IV – Pricing

VOLUME I – ADMINISTRATIVE

Volume I – Administrative shall include the following:

1. A summary or title page identifying the Offeror, the full address, phone, UEI number, CAGE code, point(s) of contact (POC(s)) of the Offeror, and the solicitation number. Offeror shall include a statement that the Offeror agrees to hold the offered prices firm for 180 calendar days after the proposal closing date. (Page limit: 1 page)

2. A completed copy of PAGE 1 ONLY of the SF 1449 and any amendments to the solicitation, if any are issued, with the signature of a corporate officer authorized to negotiate for the company. Electronic signature is acceptable. Do not include the entire SF 1449.

3. Representations and Certifications. Offerors shall be registered in the SAM with the appropriate NAICS Code and shall not have any Active Exclusions listed within SAM. If the Offeror is currently registered in SAM with completed representations and certifications, an affirmation on the title page (or separate page) that these representations and certificates are current, complete, and accurate as of the date proposals are due shall suffice. Otherwise, the Offeror shall complete and include with its proposal one (1) copy of the following provisions located within the solicitation: FAR Provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications, Alternate I; FAR Provision 52.209-7, Information Regarding Responsibility Matters; plus, any other provisions herein. (Page limit: 1 page if registered in SAM; unlimited pages if including provisions.)

4. The Continuation of Essential Contractor Services Plan. This plan shall be prepared in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services, contained in this solicitation. There is no page limit for this plan; however, Offerors are encouraged to be as succinct as possible in describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in the Performance Work Statement during periods of crisis. The plan shall identify provisions made for the acquisition of essential personnel and resources, if necessary, for continuity of operations for up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and shall address, at a minimum, (i) Challenges associated with maintaining essential contractor services during an extended event, such as a pandemic that occurs in repeated waves; (ii) The time lapse associated with the initiation of the acquisition of essential personnel and resources and their actual availability on site; (iii) The components, processes, and requirements for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel who are capable of relocating to alternate facilities or performing work from home; (iv) Any established alert and notification procedures for mobilizing identified “essential contractor service'' personnel; and (v) The approach for communicating expectations to contractor employees regarding their roles and responsibilities during a crisis.

VOLUME II – FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL (INCLUSIVE OF SUBFACTORS)

FACTOR 1. TECHNICAL: These parts of the technical proposal shall be addressed in sufficient written detail for the Government to determine if the offeror understands this aspect of the Government’s requirement. Statements that the offeror understands, can or will comply with all specifications, or statements paraphrasing the specifications of parts thereof, or phrases such as “standard procedures will be used” or “well-known techniques will be used” will be considered unacceptable. Insufficient explanations may result in your offer receiving an UNACCEPTABLE rating. The technical proposal (to include addressing all subfactors) shall not exceed 20 pages.

Subfactor 1: Technical Capabilities:

· Offeror shall submit a detailed technical approach for completing the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to include but not limited to the firm’s ability to provide the full range of services as outlined in the performance work statement.

· Offeror shall provide management and operation plans (safety procedures, staff training plans etc.) to include start up time needed between notice of award and start of service.

· Offeror shall provide a Contingency Plan – provisions for inclement weather, breakdown, insufficient drivers and emergency evacuation.

· Offeror shall demonstrate their response to dispatches timely in accordance with the requirements in the Performance Work Statement for multiple locations requiring transport services simultaneously.

· Offeror shall demonstrate the ability to handle multiple dispatches and surges during peak discharge hours (afternoons and Fridays) and interfacility transports.

· Offeror shall demonstrate the ability to provide the minimum number of vehicles and add additional vehicles if needed to meet peak times in discharges and interfacility transports.

· Offeror shall demonstrate their respond to Air Evacuation mission transports and mass casualty exercises in accordance with Performance Work Statement.

· Offeror shall demonstrate it possesses necessary equipment, standards, work processes, and general resources to accomplish all the requirements of the Performance Work Statement

· Offeror shall provide a copy of the Company’s State of Texas EMS License

Subfactor 2: Personnel Qualifications

· Offeror shall provide the labor categories and labor hours. Offeror shall demonstrate that its personnel possess appropriate skill mix/qualification to accomplish all the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.

· Offeror shall demonstrate experience in flight line training, ambulance vehicles, and AMBUS and how to meet the ground ambulance response timelines stated in the PWS.

· Offeror shall provide the required licenses/permits/certifications needed in accordance with the applicable Federal, State, Municipal and local regulations necessary to perform the services required per the PWS.

· Offeror shall provide their management plan on how they will ensure all Paramedics and EMT’s are certified in accordance with Texas State requirements and how the Contractor will ensure personnel will meet all future training and renewal of licensure requirements.

· Offeror shall provide the resume for the EMS Medical Director. As per PWS 1.19.i, the EMS medical director shall be a physician and meet the specific requirements of the DHAPM 6025.13, volume 4 as well as the Texas Administrative Code (Title 25, part 1, Chapter 157, Subchapter B, Rule §157.11) and guidelines set forth by DSHS.

Subfactor 3: Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance

· Offeror shall submit their vehicle inspection plan demonstrating how their vehicles, medical equipment, and all accessories and systems shall be cleaned, examined, and inspected in accordance with the suggested maintenance schedule of the vehicle manufacturer.

VOLUME III – FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror shall submit with its proposal evidence of recent and relevant past performance under which YOUR company (the Offeror) provided the same or similar services with similar magnitude and scope in the public and/or private sector. Performance must have been by the Offeror (not by a subsidiary or sister company) either as the prime contractor or subcontractor. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevancy, see the Evaluation Criteria for Factor 1 – Past Performance in the Addendum to 52.212-2.

· Offerors shall complete and provide the Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheet (Attachment 2) on three (3) task orders or stand-alone contracts/purchase orders the Offeror will complete or has completed within the past three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation that the Offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating YOUR company’s (the Offeror’s) ability to perform the proposed effort. Offerors shall utilize the attachment provided and ensure all information is complete and accurate.

· If the Task Order or Contract being submitted is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), only after issuance of a delivery/task order does performance occur. The Contract Number, Total Contract Dollar Value, Period of Performance, Type and Complexity of Services provided submitted shall be for the Task/Delivery Order the Offeror has performed under this ordering type contractual vehicle. Not the ordering vehicle itself or a combination of orders under the vehicle.

· Past Performance must be with the Department of Defense (DoD), other US Government departments or agencies, state and local governments and/or commercial/private sector clients. If the Offeror performed as a subcontractor on the reference project, the PPI shall explain what percentage and type of work that was performed by the Offeror as subcontractor.

· Each PPI Sheet is limited to 3 pages per project.

· Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) in accordance with the PPQ Form (Attachment 3). The Offeror will send blank PPQs to Government agencies and/or private sector companies requesting past performance information on applicable projects. Narratives are required on questionnaires (PPQs) for ratings other than satisfactory. If the narratives do not support the rating or if there is no narrative for a rating higher than satisfactory, the questionnaire rating will be evaluated as satisfactory.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to track and ensure the completion/submission of the PPQs by the proposal due date. The Government will not accept incomplete or late PPQs. The PPQs shall reference the exact same projects detailed in the PPIs. Past Performance references may be contacted.

· The Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance submittals and information obtained from other sources available to the Government.

VOLUME IV – FACTOR 3: PRICING

The Offeror shall submit proposed pricing for all contract line-item numbers identified in the solicitation on the Excel spreadsheet provided as Attachment 4. The Pricing Worksheet shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format with all formulas intact. Offerors shall ensure the formulas and totals accurately reflect the pricing data proposed. Provide total pricing for the base period and each option period, as well as a grand total of the entire proposal. Cost and Pricing Data is not required under competitive and commercial acquisitions; however, if only one proposal is received - Other than Certified Cost or Pricing data may be required.

(End of Addendum to 52.212-1)

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

Paragraph (a) is hereby replaced with the following:

(a) Award will be made using the Best-Value Tradeoff source selection process. Past Performance is significantly more important than Technical, and both are more important than price when combined. However, price could become the determining factor, if the proposals are determined to be essentially equal. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Agency the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the past and present performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the solicitation, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

Award may be made without discussions with Offerors (except communications conducted for the purpose of minor clarification). Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a past performance and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. When discussions/negotiations occur, each participating Offeror shall be given an opportunity to revise their proposal to reflect any changes that may have resulted from the discussions/negotiations.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL is further divided into the following subfactors:

FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3 - PRICE

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government evaluation process is as follows:

Step 1 – The Government will conduct a compliance review to determine if each Offeror met the submission requirements as outlined in 52.212-1 and Addendum to 52.212-1. If a proposal is found to be non-compliant no further consideration will be afforded to that proposal.

Step 2 – Once the Government has determined which proposals are compliant, only those proposals will continue with the evaluation process as outlined below.

Step 3 – Evaluation Process for Factors 1, 2, and 3.

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

Technical ratings reflect the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability, as demonstrated in its written technical proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the solicitation. The Government will make an independent judgment of the probability of success. The following ratings will be used in evaluating each offeror’s written technical proposal:

Any offer that receives a rating of less than “acceptable” on any of the technical subfactors will be ineligible for award and will be rated “unacceptable” for the overall rating for this factor. The proposal will be removed from consideration and no further evaluation will be conducted.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) rating is based on an integrated assessment of the Offerors recent, relevant, and quality past performance (PPI Sheets, PPQs and information obtained from other sources available to the Government). The resulting PCA rating is determined at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent, relevant and quality past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than less recent 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. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contract citations deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. A rating of at least Satisfactory Confidence or Neutral Confidence must be obtained in order to be eligible for award. More relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. A “Substantial Confidence” rating of past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Satisfactory Confidence" rating.

Definitions

The following definitions will be utilized for the Performance Confidence Assessment determination:

(a) Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information contained in the Offeror’s submittals will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) Relevancy Assessment An assessment of the recent past performance information will be made to determine its relevancy. This information will be evaluated to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(c) Performance Quality Assessment After the determination of recency and relevancy, the Government will assess the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the Performance Confidence Assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Relevancy Ratings: The Government will use the following relevancy definitions/ratings when assessing relevant past performance:

Relevancy Rating

Confidence Ratings: The Government will use the following definitions/ratings when making an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA).

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Methods

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

Price Analysis will be conducted. Proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness. The proposed price will be evaluated on the bottom-line price for the entire effort, inclusive of all options. 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. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Some of those techniques are, but not limited to, comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and/or comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate. Price must be determined fair and reasonable.

(a) Options. The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(b) Given that FAR 52.217-8 provides that the Government may exercise the Option to Extend Services at the rates specified in the contract (i.e., the rates in effect when the Extension of Services option is exercised), for purposes of evaluating the Option to Extend Services, the Contracting Officer will consider the prices submitted for each option year, since those are the binding prices should the Option to Extend be exercised.

(c) The award decision will be based on the best value offered to the Government and not solely on price and price related factors. In making the award decision, the Contracting Officer will consider the evaluated rating of all factors. Ratings below “Neutral Confidence” and/or “unacceptable” will not be eligible for award.

END OF ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

image1.emf