Attachment 1_Instructions to Offeror and Evaluation Criteria.pdf

W81K0025QA217

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA -

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

The deadline for Questions is 26 Jan 2026, 1:00 PM, Central Standard Time. All questions must be submitted in writing to the Contract Specialist Ms. Cathy Harris, cathy.l.harris2.civ@mail.mil and the

Contracting Officer, Mr. James Davis, james.m.davis1.civ@health.mil

Do NOT submit multiple emails for questions. Answers to vendor questions will be posted to SAM.gov.

Offers shall be submitted via e-mail to cathy.l.harris2.civ@mail.mil and james.m.davis1.civ@mail.mil by the date and time established in block 8 of the SF 1449 (Central Standard Time). Offers received after the deadline will be considered untimely and will not be eligible for award. Late proposals shall be handled in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Strategy (FAR) Provision 52.212-1 (f) Late submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers.

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. Cost/Pricing shall be submitted on the

Excel spreadsheet attached to the solicitation (Attachment 2), renamed with the same naming convention.

A pdf of pricing is not required. Pricing information shall only be included in Volume IV – Pricing 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.

Potential contractors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) to be eligible for award. The SAM website is http://www.sam.gov.

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 technical capability, past performance, and price. Submissions that do not adhere to format and content requirements will be considered non-complaint. The Government reserves the right to eliminate any such proposals from consideration for award.

General Instructions: The selection of a source for award purposes will be conducted utilizing FAR Part 12, “Acquisition of Commercial Items”, with procedures delineated in FAR

Part 13, “Simplified Acquisition Procedures” as authorized in FAR 12.203 and supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Offers will be evaluated using the criteria in

Addendum to FAR Provision 52.212-2, “Evaluation Factors for Award.” Noncompliance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements may hamper the Government's ability to properly evaluate the proposal and may result in elimination of the proposal from further mailto:cathy.l.harris2.civ@mail.mil mailto:james.m.davis1.civ@health.mil mailto:cathy.l.harris2.civ@mail.mil mailto:james.m.davis1.civ@mail.mil http://www.sam.gov/ consideration for contract award.

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, an ambiguity, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contract Specialist, in writing, with the supporting rationale, and courtesy copy the Contracting Officer.

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

• Volume I – Administrative

• Volume II – Technical

• Volume III– Past Performance

• Volume IV – Price

Table 1 – Proposal Submittal Instructions and Format

(a) Proposal Limitation. The proposal shall not exceed the page limitation stated in the above chart. The

Government will not accept any changes to the Offeror’s proposal after the closing date of the solicitation. If discussions become necessary, page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation

Notice (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the

ENs to the Offerors. Page limitations are as follows:

VOLUME TITLE NO. OF DIGITAL &

ELECTRONIC COPIES

PAGE LIMIT

I Administrative

SF1449 Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs

Representation, Certification, and Other

Statements of Offerors

Exceptions / Assumptions

Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan

1 EA – MS Word or PDF N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

II Technical Capability –

Performance Work Statement

Management Plan

(Quality Control Plan)

Staffing Approach

1 EA – MS Word, PDF or

Excel

105 Total

10 (20 Max when QCP is included)

III Past Performance 1 EA – MS Word, PDF or

Excel

3 min-5 max pages per

PPI (Maximum of 5)

IV Price 1 EA – MS Word or Excel N/A

(b) Page Limit includes all appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, and any additional item that consumes page space (excluding those identified in the below paragraph). Pages will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc.

(c) Page Limit DOES NOT include covers for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, cross reference indices, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Pages marked as “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted. The Statement of Objectives (SOO) (Attachment 5) will not be counted against the 65-page limit.

(d) What Counts As A Page? All electronic documents submitted shall be printable to an 8 ½ X 11” sheet of paper. Letter size and spacing requirements for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the

Offeror but must be easily readable. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and 3/4 inch side margins. The Contractor shall number each page in order to eliminate any confusion. In the event contractor creates an ambiguity in their numbering of pages, the Government may exercise its own discretion in counting pages. Proposals submitted in PDF format shall be searchable. PDF files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0”

From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5”

Page Size, Height – 11”

(e) Font: The proposal font shall be in Times New Roman, size 12(smaller fonts may be used in headers, footers, graphs, charts, tables, and notes provided the type is legible). All text shall be single spaced, black font on a white background (NOTE: The black and white requirement does not apply to graphics, photos, etc., Company stationary and logo’s). Cross-references should be utilized to preclude unnecessary duplication of data between sections. Price shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel (.xls). Please note – Self extracting exe files are NOT acceptable.

The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.

(f) Indexing. Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs or sections within the volume.

(g) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. If using abbreviations, each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with a definition for each.

Proposal Content: Failure to follow the below Contract Proposal preparation and submittal instructions may cause your proposal to be deemed unacceptable by the Government.

VOLUME I – ADMINISTRATIVE

Volume I – Administrative shall include the following:

1. A summary or title page identifying the Offeror, the full address, phone, Unique Entity Identifier

(UEI), 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. (Limit 1 page).

2. For Offerors proposing as a Joint Venture (JV), the JV must be separately identified with its own name, UEI number, and CAGE code in the SAM and designate the entity type as a JV, with individual partners listed as the immediate owners. In addition, Offerors shall include the UEI number, and CAGE number for the individual partners that make up the JV.

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. A small business joint venture offeror must submit, with its offer, the representation required in paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and paragraph (c) of FAR solicitation provision 52.219-1, Small Business Program Representations, in accordance with 52.204-8(d) and 52.212-3(b) for the following categories: (A) Small business; (B)

Service-disabled veteran-owned small business; (C) Women-owned small business (WOSB) under the

WOSB Program; (D) Economically disadvantaged women-owned small business under the WOSB

Program; or (E) Historically underutilized business zone small business. (Page limit: 1 page if registered in SAM; unlimited pages if including provisions.)

In the event the Offeror is a joint venture, the Offeror shall provide a copy of the Joint Venture

Agreement (JVA) signed by all partners. The JVA shall specify the rights and responsibilities of each partner and shall identify the managing partner. In addition, the Offeror shall provide a summary narrative that specifically delineates what each partner will do in regard to performing the contract. The responsibilities of the managing partner are significantly more important than the responsibilities of all other partners combined. In the event the Offeror will be subcontracting with another or multiple businesses, the Offeror shall certify that at least 50 percent of the cost of the contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern in accordance with FAR Clause

52.219-14(c)(1).

6. The Continuation of Essential Contractor Services Plan (page limit 10). This plan shall be prepared in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services, contained in this solicitation. 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. Note: The inclusion of this plan falls under administrative proposal compliance and is not an individually rated factor. By the offeror’s submission, the Continuation of Essential Contractor Services Plan will be incorporated into the resultant contract award of the successful offeror and will be utilized in the event of a period of crisis.

VOLUME II – FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

FACTOR 1. Technical Capability:

(a) The Technical Capability Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for an effective evaluation that substantiates the validity of stated claims. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are important.

Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical Capability subfactors defined in the Addendum to

FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation of Commercial Items. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements; instead, provide a convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the stated objective. Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the

PWS shell (Attachment 6)/SOO (Attachment 5); statements paraphrasing the PWS shell/SOO or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and, phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used” will be considered unacceptable. The use of

“parroting” of the PWS shell/SOO with a statement of intent to perform does not reveal the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement or their capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements.

Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror's proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

Offerors are advised that the Performance Work Statement in the ultimately awarded contract document may reflect any capabilities proposed by the Offeror.

(b) The Technical Capability Volume shall be prepared in a form consistent with the PWS shell

(Attachment 6), SOO (Attachment 5) and the evaluation criteria for award set forth in Addendum to FAR

Provision 52.212-2 of this solicitation. The section shall be prepared in an orderly format and provide the methodology and the work required for each task with sufficient detail to enable the Government to make a thorough evaluation of the contractor’s technical competence and ability to execute the proposed tasks to meet the objectives specified in the SOO. The Technical Capability volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

- Table of Contents

- List of Table and Drawings

- Cross Reference Matrix

- Exceptions/Assumptions (Identification and explanation of any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, identify any assumptions used in preparing the proposal

- Technical Capability (Factor One)

--Subfactor One

--Subfactor Two (etc.)

Sub-Factor #1- Performance Work Statement: The Contractor shall provide a Performance Work

Statement using the provided PWS attachment (Attachment 6 BAMC PWS Template) (Page limit of 65)

The PWS should address a clear and detailed approach to meeting the Government’s objective and executing all SOO requirements.

Sub-Factor #2 Management Plan: The Offeror shall provide a Management Plan that specifically defines and details the Offeror’s capabilities to successfully manage, perform, and execute the

Government’s requirements. The Offeror shall:

Provide an organizational structure (including an organizational chart) that aligns with the Offeror’s technical approach. The offeror shall provide in detail:

The names, educational level, years of experience, and qualifications associated with personnel the

Offeror considers to be essential and key to meeting all of the objectives listed in the SOO (Attachment

5). The Offeror shall identify a program manager that will be responsible for the overall management and performance of the contract. The Offeror shall provide evidence that the program manager meets the following minimum qualifications:

- Bachelor degree from an accredited university and

- A minimum of minimum of five (5) years of experience managing services in a general healthcare setting.

OR

-Project Management Professional Certificate and

- A minimum of minimum of five (5) years of experience managing services in a general healthcare setting.

Provide a Quality Control Plan (Page limit 10) that demonstrates how quality, as outlined in the SOO’s performance standards, will be met. The Offeror must provide performance measures in addition to those already stated in the proposed PWS that are meaningful, measurable, challenging and show the Offeror’s ability to meet the objectives identified in the provided SOO.

Sub-Factor #3 Staffing Approach: The Offeror shall provide a Staffing approach (Page limit 10) that discusses, at a minimum, the contractor’s ability to recruit/source, onboard, and retain the talent required to perform on this contract. The Offeror’s approach shall include how the Offeror intends to backfill vacancies of key personnel within 30-days or less.

Subcontractor arrangement (if one exists). The proposed subcontractor arrangement will identify the

Prime to subcontractor(s) relationship, their name(s), and a clear delineation of responsibilities for the

Prime and each subcontractor for each objective(s) in the SOO (Attachment 6). Additionally, the narrative shall include the associated skills the subcontractor possesses in relation to the assigned objective(s). If the Offeror will not subcontract any portion of this requirement, they shall state as such and it shall not count against the Offeror.

VOLUME III – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance shall include the following:

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 as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation.

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 2 – Past

Performance in the Addendum to 52.212-2.

• Offerors shall complete and provide the Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheet

(Attachment 3) on a minimum of three (3) task orders or stand-alone contracts/purchase orders and a maximum of five (5) 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 referenced 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

4). 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, to include, but not limited to, the Contract Past Performance Assessment

System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with

Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources and/or non-Government sources, such as any commercial business or customers referenced by the Offeror in any of the past performance information disclosed.

• Offerors shall submit with its proposal consent letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information.

Provide a copy of the attached Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 4) to a minimum of three references with instructions to return the PPQ to the Medical Readiness Contracting Office-West, ATTN: cathy.l.harris2.civ@mail.mil and james.m.davis1.civ@health.mil by the specified due date for receipt of offers. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure the reference submits the PPQ directly to the

Contracting Office for consideration. Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) will also be accepted in lieu of PPQs. Offerors shall ensure CPARs are finalized and correspond to the list of references provided in this volume.

Note. The Project Summary must contain contract numbers, descriptions of work, periods of performance and, POC emails/phone numbers. If a PPQ was not received for any of the past performance references identified on the past performance information sheet, the Government may conduct interviews to validate performance/quality information. Any past performance reference that does not contain valid/current POC contact information or, if the POC provided cannot validate work identified on the project summary sheet, the past performance reference will not be evaluated.

mailto:cathy.l.harris2.civ@mail.mil mailto:james.m.davis1.civ@health.mil

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.

VOLUME IV – FACTOR 3 - PRICE

The Offeror shall submit proposed pricing for all contract line-item numbers identified in the solicitation on the Excel spreadsheet provided as Attachment 2. The Pricing Worksheet shall be submitted in

Microsoft Excel format with all formulas intact.

All information relating to the proposed price must be included in electronic format. Electronic files/versions should not be read only or password protected. All Excel formulas, lookup tables, and links should be intact, and no links should exist to files not included with the submission. Excel workbooks shall not contain hidden spreadsheets. PDF or flat files will not be considered adequate. Failure to comply with these formatting requirements may result in rejection of your proposal.

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. The

Service Contract Act and Wage Determination WD 2015-5253 REV 22 Date 3 Dec 2025 is provided as

Attachment 7 of the solicitation. Contractors are required to ensure their proposals are compliant with all applicable laws and regulations to include the Service Contact Act Wage Determinations and Executive

Orders. 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 techniques in accordance with FAR

15.404-1(b) may be used. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.402(a) may be required from the Offeror to support the proposed price.

Note: No more than 2 decimal places are to be used.

(m) The non-FAR Part 12 discretionary FAR, and DFARS provisions included herein are either by reference or in full text. If incorporated by reference, see provision 52.252-1 herein for locations where full text can be found.

END OF ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1

52.212-2 ADDENDUM TO EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICES

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

The Government will review proposals received to determine if they are compliant to the solicitation requirements. A compliant proposal is one that meets all of the terms, conditions and specifications in the solicitation. The Offeror must provide all documents listed and comply with all proposal instructions in order for their proposal to be considered “compliant” to this solicitation. Only compliant proposals will be evaluated for award. The Government may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration if the proposal is found to be noncompliant with the instructions of Addendum to FAR Provision 52.212-1.

Offerors are advised that the Performance Work Statement in the ultimately awarded contract document may reflect any capabilities proposed by the Offeror.

Paragraph (a) is hereby replaced with the following:

(a) Award will be made using the Best-Value Tradeoff source selection process. As this acquisition is utilizing a ‘trade-off” methodology, the relative order of importance of the factors and Subfactors is delineated accordingly: Technical Capability (Factor 1) is equal to Past Performance (Factor 2). Within

Technical Capability (Factor 1), all Subfactors are equally important. Finally, in accordance with FAR 13, all evaluation factors other than Price (Factor 3), when combined, are significantly more important than price. 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 Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the past and present performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. However, the degree of importance of cost/price as a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in the non-cost/price factors. The greater the equality of proposals within the non-cost/price factors, the more important cost/price becomes in selecting the best value to the

Government.

To arrive at a best value decision, the Contracting Officer will integrate the evaluation 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.

It is the Government’s intention to award without discussions in accordance with (IAW) FAR Provision

52.212-1(g). Offerors are encouraged to present their best proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission. However, in accordance with FAR Part 13, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if necessary. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and Offerors notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency. The Offeror is reminded that the

Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Technical, Past Performance and

Price. This acquisition is utilizing a ‘trade-off” methodology, the relative order of importance of the factors and Subfactors is delineated accordingly: Technical Capability (Factor 1) is equal to Past

Performance (Factor 2). Within Technical Capability (Factor 1), all Subfactors are equally important.

Finally, all evaluation factors other than Price (Factor 3), when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Factor 1 – Technical Capability

Sub-Factor #1- Performance Work Statement

Sub-Factor #2- Management Plan

Sub-Factor #3- Staffing Approach

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 - Price

The Offeror’s Technical Capability will be evaluated as Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or

Unacceptable. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Capability factor (to include all its subfactors). If an Offeror’s Technical

Factor is found to be below Acceptable, it will not be further evaluated.

FACTOR 1 Technical Capability: The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the

Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. The Contractor will be evaluated on its ability to: 1) Demonstrate a clear understanding of the work to be performed; 2) Meet the

Government’s objective; 3) Perform the tasks and deliverables of the SOO within the period of performance; 4) Deliver a management and staffing approach to support the SOO/PWS.

Sub-Factor #1- Performance Work Statement (PWS): The PWS will be evaluated as follows:

The Offeror’s proposed tasks (provided in detail and in commercial terms) will be evaluated for specific technical and management solutions that are logical and sequential, and lead to the accomplishment of the objectives of the SOO. All highlighted areas of the PWS (Attachment 6) shall be evaluated for completeness. The Offeror will only make changes to the PWS in the areas that are highlighted.

Only the highlighted sections of the PWS are to be completed by the Offeror and other information throughout the PWS are Government requirements and shall not to be changed/altered.

Sub-Factor #2- Management Plan: The Management Plan Subfactor will be evaluated as follows:

The proposal will be evaluated on the basis of the extent to which the proposal demonstrates capabilities to successfully manage, perform, and execute the SOO/PWS requirements.

The organization structure will be evaluated to the extent to which it aligns with the technical approach.

The proposal will be evaluated for completeness in providing the names, educational level, years of experience, and qualifications associated with personnel the Offeror considers essential and key to meeting all of the objectives listed in the SOO (Attachment 5). The narrative will be evaluated for the clear identification of the program manager that will be responsible for the overall management and performance of the contract. Additionally, the qualification of the proposed program manager will be evaluated for compliance in meeting all of the stated qualifications.

The Quality Control Plan will be evaluated to determine how well the Offeror demonstrates quality oversight and how quality standards, as outlined in the Performance Requirements Summary, will be achieved and maintained during performance.

Sub-Factor #3- Staffing Approach: The Contractor will be evaluated on its plan to recruit/source, onboard, and retain the talent required to perform on this contract.

The approach will be evaluated for practicality of execution and the ability to recruit, retain its employees and backfill vacancies of key personnel within 30-days or less.

Table 1. Technical Factor and Sub-Factors Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1. Each Technical Capability subfactor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below and then there will be an overall roll-up adjectival rating at the factor level. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. Any sub-factor that receives a marginal or unacceptable rating will result in an overall marginal or unacceptable rating for the factor and are not eligible for award.

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE.

Evaluation Process

This factor is assessed with an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) rating (Table 3) which 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 Performance Confidence Assessment 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.

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.

For Offerors who relied on a subcontractor/teaming partner’s past performance information, the

Government will ensure those Offerors meet the subcontractor/teaming partner requirements outlined in the solicitation. The Government will follow 13 CFR 125.8(e) when evaluating any Joint Venture’s submittal under this factor. Consideration will be given to work done individually for each partner as well as work done as the Joint Venture (as applicable).

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.

Relevancy Ratings: 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.

Table 2. Relevancy

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.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires.

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.

Confidence Ratings: The Government will use the following definitions/ratings in Table 3 when making an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA). Proposals which receive a PCA of lower than

Neutral confidence will be ineligible for award and will not be further evaluated.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessment

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 3 – PRICE.

Price Analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR13 and FAR 19.1307 Price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns, if applicable. 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, which includes the examination of all proposed option year pricing to ensure no option period is significantly over or understated. 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. Proposals whose price is not fair and/or reasonable are ineligible for award and will not be further evaluated.

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).

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 the base and each option year, since those are the binding prices should the Option to Extend be exercised.

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 “Acceptable.” will not be eligible for award and will not be further evaluated.

END OF ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2