Attachment 2 - Addenda 52.212-1 & 2.pdf

Solicitation HT001425R0023

Attachment 2

Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items And

Evaluation Criteria

Addenda to FAR Clauses 52.212-1 and 52-212-2

1. This requirement is in support of the Defense Health Agency Contracting Activity (DHACA), Healthcare Contracting Division - Northeast (HCD-Northeast) to support Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) with hospital telephone switchboard operator services and call center services.

2. The HCD-Northeast intends to award one purchase order accordance with FAR part 13 and the procedures set forth in this solicitation.

3. To be accepted and eligible for evaluation, proposals must be prepared in compliance with these instructions and all the terms and conditions contained in this solicitation.

4. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

5. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS: Provide one (1) electronic proposal copy. The proposal shall be submitted in two sections: Past Performance and Price.

Offerors must send an e-mail to Pamela Renteria; pamela.i.renteria.civ@health.mil and Edgar DuChemin;

edgar.r.duchemin.civ@health.mil to verify receipt of proposal. Please note that large files can be stripped from emails based on the amount of data transmission. 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 date and time. If a proposal is sent in multiple emails each email shall be clearly labeled stating how many emails comprise the proposal in the following format (1 of 3; 2 of 3; 3 of 3). 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. Responses to this solicitation shall strictly adhere to the requirements set forth in the solicitation. Submissions that do not adhere to format and content requirements may be considered non-compliant. The Government reserves the right to eliminate any such proposals from consideration for award.

The proposal shall not contain any extraneous information such as advertisements, or marketing information.

6. The Government will award a Purchase Order 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. Factors being utilized to evaluate proposals are:

Page limitations for each factor are specified below:

FACTOR PAGE

Past Performance

Provide three (3) Past Performance Summaries using the “Attachment 3- Past Performance Summary (PPS)” templates provided.

Price Complete the SF 1449 and return.

Composition of Responses:

SECTION I -

Offeror is required to complete /fill out the information requested in FAR clauses 52.204-20 and 52.219-28

FACTOR 1. PAST PERFORMANCE:

The burden of providing thorough and complete relevant past performance information and feedback resides with the vendor. The Vendor shall provide a relevant (as similar as possible to the solicited effort in terms of magnitude and scope. The Government will not consider past performance references that simply identify master IDIQ contract or BPA ordering vehicles with no references to relevant individual Task Orders or BPA Calls.

1. Past Performance Summaries (PPS): Past performance information submitted shall be limited to efforts that have at least six (6) months of performance occurring during the 36 months preceding the issue date of this solicitation. The performance should be relevant (as similar as possible to the solicited effort in terms of magnitude and scope); and shall be submitted as part of the vendor’s quote. The Vendor shall include up to a total of three relevant PPSs for itself and any sub-contractor performing at least 25% of the solicited effort. Three PPS’ TOTAL (maximum). Complete and submit the provided template identified as “Attachment 3 - Past Performance Summary (PPS)” (for a total of three PPS’ maximum).

If a vendor has no relevant and recent past performance history, the vendor must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant and recent past performance history.

FACTOR 2. PRICE QUOTATION:

1. Vendors must submit a completed SF 1449

(End of Provision)

(End of Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items)

Addenda to Clause 52.212-2

Did the Offeror complete /fill out the information requested in FAR clauses 52.204-20 and 52.219-28?

Evaluation – Commercial Items

BASIS FOR AWARD. The Government will award a purchase order resulting from this solicitation to the responsible vendor whose quotation conforming to this solicitation’s requirements is determined to be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The Government will utilize the following evaluation criteria to identify the best value quotation for award:

Factor 1 – Past Performance

Factor 2 – Price – completed SF1449

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal, Past Performance and Price. Award will be made to the Offeror trading off Past Performance against Price. Past Performance will be significantly more important than Price. Award may be made to other than the lowest price quotation.

(a) Factor 1. Past Performance:

Information Considered: Recent and relevant past performance information will be considered. The Government will focus its inquiries on the vendor’s record of performance on relevant and recent prior contracts. The Determination of relevancy includes a consideration of recent contracts which are similar in scope, type of work, and price to this solicitation’s requirements. The vendor’s record of performance will be evaluated for quality of services, timeliness of services, business relations, and other considerations. In the case of a vendor without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the vendor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government reserves the right to contact any entity, including the Vendor’s (or its subcontractor’s) customers, for past performance information including, as an example, whether: (1) the Vendor is capable, efficient and effective; (2) the Vendor’s performance conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract; (3) the Vendor was reasonable and cooperative during performance; (4) the Vendor was committed to customer satisfaction; and (5) if given the opportunity, would they select the same or a different Contractor.

(1) Past Performance Rating Method: The Government will assign a rating from the Past Performance

Relevancy Ratings below to each past performance contract or task order and then consider the quality of performance on each of them. Then the Government will weigh the quality of the performance on each effort in relation to the effort’s relevancy in order to determine a single rating for each Vendor from the Performance Confidence Assessments table below.

(2) Recency: Recency is assessed to ensure vendor past performance is determined based on information that is of sufficient length and currency to allow for meaningful predictive value. The Government will determine whether the past performance information submitted for this acquisition describes contracts or task orders with at least six (6) months of performance occurring during the 36 months immediately preceding the issuance date of this proposal submission. Prior efforts that are not recent will not be considered in determining a Performance Confidence Rating.

(3) Relevancy: Relevancy is assessed so that contract performance may be weighed in relation to its predictive value. The Government will consider the degree of similarity between recent past performance efforts and the solicited effort, in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity. Past performance information on an effort performed by, or as, a subcontractor may be deemed less relevant than performance by, and as, a prime contractor.

Additionally, the nature of the customer will be examined, with greater consideration being given to prior efforts performed for Department of Defense entities, then those performed for other federal customers, for state governments and then commercial customers. Each past performance effort shall be assigned a relevancy rating from the table below. Past performance that is deemed not relevant will not be considered in determining a Performance Confidence Rating.

Adjectival Rating Adjectival Rating

Very Relevant Present/Past Performance effort involved, is essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/Past Performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

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

(4) For scope, the Government will consider the degree of similarity of the referenced contract to the solicited effort. Magnitude will be assessed both by comparing the similarity of the contract value and volume of the referenced contract to the solicited effort.

(5) Performance Confidence: The Government will assess how well a Vendor is anticipated to perform on the solicited effort based on their performance on recent efforts of some relevance. For each past performance effort that is recent and at least “Somewhat Relevant,” the Government will consider the quality of the Vendor’s performance on the effort and then will weigh that performance in relation to the effort’s relevancy to determine the Government’s confidence that the Vendor will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements. That confidence, for all past performance efforts taken together as a whole, will be expressed in a single rating from the Performance Confidence Assessments table below. In the event insufficient past performance data exists for a Vendor, the overall rating for this factor will be “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).” This rating will not affect the Vendor’s overall rating in either an adverse or beneficial manner. The government will weigh more relevant and more recent past performance more heavily, than less relevant and less recent past performance.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS:

Adjectival

Rating Description

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

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

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

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

No Confidence

Based on the Vendor’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Vendor will successfully perform the required effort.

(b) Factor 2: Price:

1. The Vendor’s price will be compared to other proposals to be determine whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

2. Options. The Government will evaluate quotations for award purposes by adding the total price for all Option periods of performance to the total price for the basic requirement Evaluation of Option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise the Option(s).

(End of Evaluation – Commercial Items)