Attach 1_Instructions to Offerors_Evaluation Criteria_29 July 2021_21-R-3014_Optical.pdf

29 July 2021 W81K00-21-R-3014

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

Offerors shall submit proposals in electronic form via email no later than 2:00 P.M., Central Time (CT)((San Antonio, Texas)), 17 August, 2021. The point of contact is Ms. Rosalba Martinez, Contract Specialist, at rosalba.martinez1.civ@mail.mil and Robin M. Castro, Contracting Officer, at robin.m.castro.civ@mail.mil.

Offers shall be submitted via e-mail only. Proposals received after 2:00 P.M., CT on 17 August, 2021 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-responsive 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 Ms. Rosalba Martinez (rosalba.martinez1.civ@mail.mil) and Robin M. Castro (robin.m.castro.civ@mail.mil) not later than 2:00 P.M., CT 3 August 2021. No questions will be entertained after this date. Do NOT submit multiple emails for questions. Answers to vendor questions will be posted to FedBizOpps/beta.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.

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

Volume I – Administrative Volume II – Past Performance Volume III – Compensation Plan 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, DUNS 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. For Offerors proposing as an 8(a) Joint Venture (JV), the JV must be separately identified with its own name, DUNS number, and CAGE number in the System for Award Management (SAM) and designate the entity type as a joint venture, with individual partners listed as the immediate owners.

3. A summary identifying any proposed teaming partners or subcontractors. At a minimum the summary shall include the role and percentage of work proposed to be performed by the teaming partner or subcontractor. (Page limit: 2 pages)

4. 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.

5. 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.)

6. 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 – 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. Past Performance must be with the Department of the Army, 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.

NOTE: Past performance reference projects performed by a proposed teaming partner or a proposed subcontractor will only be considered if: (1) the Offeror submits at least one recent and relevant past performance project that the Offeror has performed, as a prime; (2) the teaming partner or subcontractor is identified as a teaming partner or subcontractor in the administrative volume of the proposal, and (3) the role and percentage of work proposed to be performed by the teaming partner or subcontractor on the proposed requirement is detailed in the proposal. Items (2) and (3) shall be identified in the administrative volume.

Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) in accordance with the PPQ Form (Attachment 3).

The Offeror will send blank PPQs to US Government departments or agencies, state and local governments and/or commercial/private sector clients 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 III – COMPENSATION PLAN

Compensation Plan: Offerors shall submit a complete Total Compensation Plan for each specialty setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. Offerors shall breakout the total compensation hourly rates (Base Rate + Fringe = Total

Compensation Hourly Rate) for the base period and each option period. (Attachment 5 is hereby provided as a sample to assist Offerors in how to breakout the Base Rate + Fringe to equal the Total Compensation Hourly Rate. Offerors are not required to use this sample however, Offerors are cautioned to ensure that the information presented in Attachment 5 is included with their compensation plan to show the Total Compensation Hourly Rate (Base + Fringe).

Offerors shall include a narrative (limited to 5 pages) and supporting information used in establishing the total compensation structure. The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives.

In the event of hiring independent contractors and or subcontractors, a separate Compensation Plan will NOT be required. Rather, independent /subcontractor data shall be rolled-up into the prime contractor’s Compensation Plan. Offerors shall provide an explanation of how the independent contractors and or subcontractors will be compensated and that the proposal is compliant with subcontracting limitations.

VOLUME IV – 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 commercial acquisitions; however, if only one proposal is received - Other than Certified Cost or Pricing data may be required.

(m) The Government will award a contract resulting from the solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

(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 Compensation Plan, 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 Army 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 and/or compensation plans 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, compensation plans 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:

(1) FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

(2) FACTOR 2 - COMPENSATION PLAN

(3) 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 outline below.

Step 3 – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Evaluation Process

The overall 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 an "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

NOTE: Past performance reference projects performed by a proposed teaming partner or a proposed subcontractor will only be considered if: (1) the Offeror submits at least one recent and relevant past performance project that the Offeror has performed, as a prime; (2) the teaming partner or subcontractor is identified as a teaming partner or subcontractor in the administrative volume of the proposal, and (3) the role and percentage of work proposed to be performed by the teaming partner or subcontractor on the proposed requirement is detailed in the proposal. Items (2) and (3) shall be identified in the administrative volume.

A rating of at least Satisfactory Confidence or Neutral Confidence must be obtained in order to be eligible for award. 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.

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

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing the same or larger sized full-service team, providing the same services, in the same environment as the solicited requirement.)

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a slightly smaller sized full-service team, providing similar services in a similar environment as the solicited requirement.)

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a smaller full-service team, providing somewhat similar services in a similar environment as the solicited requirement.)

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a considerably smaller sized team that did not encompass full-service, or where the scope, magnitude and complexities are dissimilar to the solicited requirement.)

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

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Methods

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.

Neutral Confidence 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.

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 successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 2 – COMPENSATION PLAN

A Compensation Plan for each of the specialties will be required and will be rated individually as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable” and then an overall rating will be assigned for this factor. Any offer that receives an “Unacceptable” rating will be ineligible for award. The proposal will be removed from consideration and no further evaluation will be conducted. Any compensation plan that is incomplete, does not show the breakdown of fringe benefits, explanation if hiring independent contractors/subcontractors, or are not submitted with amounts as hourly (not annual) rates will be rated “unacceptable”.

The proposed compensation plans will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention and its consistency with a total plan for compensation that is sufficient to attract and retain quality Health Care Providers (HCPs) at a fair and reasonable rate at which we could reasonably expect a vendor to be able to recruit and retain qualified individuals for this requirement. The Government will utilize a variety of sources to evaluate each Offeror’s Compensation Plan to determine an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating. In order to adequately manage the risk of non-performance and high turnover the Government will evaluate the Compensation Plan (base salary plus fringe) rates for the base year and option years to ensure the Compensation Plan is sufficient to recruit and retain qualified candidates to support this requirement.

Acceptable The proposed compensation is sufficient to attract and retain quality HCPs.

Unacceptable The proposed compensation to the HCP is not sufficient to attract and retain quality HCPs.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE:

Price Analysis will be conducted. Proposals will be evaluate 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.

(c) 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).

(d) 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.

(e) 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 of “unacceptable” will not be eligible for award.

END OF ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2