Attachment 3 Addendum to 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 .pdf

ATTACHMENT 3: Addendum to 52.212-1 and 52.212-2

INSTRUCTIONS TO QUOTERS

Addendum to 52.212-1

In addition to the information required to be submitted with the offer by FAR clause 52.212-1(b), the following information shall also be submitted with the quote:

Quotes for the requirement described in the RFQ are due by August 27, 2026, by 2:00 p.m. CST to kimberly.johnson@nasa.gov, and joseph.m.marucci@nasa.gov in order to be considered for award. If it is in the best interest of the Government, quotes submitted after the due date may be accepted. Quotes shall remain valid for 60 days unless otherwise expressly stated on the quote.

All contractual and technical questions shall be in writing (e-mail) kimberly.johnson@nasa.gov, and joseph.m.marucci@nasa.gov no later than August 24 by 10 A.M. CST. Questions shall be submitted using ATTACHMENT: 5 RFQ Questions Template. Questions will not be accepted via phone.

This Procurement is set aside for small business. The NAICS Code and the small business size standard for this procurement is 621111, 16M.

Quoter shall be certified within the System for Award Management System (SAM) and completion of Reps and Certs in the SAM system prior to award at www.sam.gov.

In addition to the aforementioned instructions, the Quoter must submit the following:

The Quoter shall prepare their quote package as set forth in the quote organization level table below and utilize the ATTACHMENT 4: Quote Response Guide and ATTACHMENT 2: Pricing Quote Template as instructed in those respective documents. The titles and content of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and format required.

Quote Organization Level Table:

Volume/Section Title Method of Submission/ Format

Page Limit

Volume I Executive Quote

Section I Quoter Information Quote Response Guide/ Microsoft Word

1 page per reference utilizing the Quote Response Guide

Section II Exceptions Quote Response Guide/ Microsoft Word

N/A

Section III Model Contract Adobe PDF (.pdf) N/A mailto:kimberly.johnson@nasa.gov mailto:joseph.m.marucci@nasa.gov mailto:kimberly.johnson@nasa.gov mailto:joseph.m.marucci@nasa.gov https://www.sam.gov./

Volume II Past Performance Quote Response Guide/ Microsoft Word

2 pages per reference utilizing the Quote Response Guide

Volume III Criteria 1-Technical Quote

Section I Criteria 1a – Corporate Experience

Quote Response Guide/ Microsoft Word

Per the character limited per table row utilizing the Quote Response Guide

Section II Criteria 1b – Key Personnel Quote Response Guide/ Microsoft Word

2 pages utilizing the Quote Response Guide

Section III Criteria 1c – Capability and Understanding

Quote Response Guide/ Microsoft Word

3 pages utilizing the Quote Response Guide

Volume IV Criteria 2 – Price Quote Price Template, Microsoft Excel

N/A

In determining page counts, a page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 1/2" x 11", with at least one-inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12-point type. Use by quoters of smaller font sizes for non-standard text (e.g. graphics, tables, charts, figures, captions) is permitted, if appropriate (Company logos are excluded from the font requirements). However, such fonts must be no smaller than 8-point, must be used only where appropriate, and must not be used to circumvent RFQ proposal page limitations. Pages that exceed the page count shall be removed from the submitted quote for evaluation purposes.

Volume I Executive Quote

Section I Quoter Information The Quoter shall complete Section I Quoters Information section of ATTACHMENT 4: Quote Response Guide. All fields shall be completed (except for Authorized Contract Signee (if different than Primary) and associated fields if the Point of Contact (POC) is the same as the Primary POC).

Section II Exceptions

The Quoter shall meet all RFQ requirements, such as terms and conditions, technical requirements, and all identified evaluation criteria’s. The Quoter shall clearly identify any exception by completing Section II Exceptions on the Quote Response Guide. Each exception shall be specifically related to a specific paragraph and/or specific part of the RFQ to which the exception is taken. The Quoter shall provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the RFQ. If no exceptions, check the box under Section II Exceptions on the Quote Response Guide stating no exception.

Section III Model Contract

The Quoters shall submit a signed and dated SF 1449, signed and dated copies of all SF 30s/amendments. The Quoters shall complete the following items if it applies to the RFQ:

Model Contract Instructions

FORM TITLE ITEMS TO COMPLETE

SF 1449 Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Products and Commercial Services

Blocks 12, 17, 22, 23, 24, and 30 (a, b, and c)

SF 30(s) Amendment of Solicitation/

Modification of Contract Blocks 15 (a, b, and c)

Volume II Past Performance (Pass/Fail Gate)

The Quoters shall provide Government or commercial past performance references for no more than two (2) recent and relevant past performance experiences. “Recent” is defined as work performed that is ongoing or has been completed within the past five (5) years. “Relevant” is defined as work that is similar in size, scope and complexity to the ATTACHMENT 1:

Performance Work Statement. NASA will accept past performance references from the prime contractor, first tier subcontractor, joint venture member or any teaming partners.

Quoters that do not have recent and relevant past performance will receive a Past Performance rating of “Not Applicable/Neutral/Pass” and will be solely evaluated on the remaining Evaluation Criteria.

Note-If Quoters do have recent and relevant past performance references and opt to not submit it as part of their quote to obtain a rating of “N/A,” they will receive a Past Performance rating of “Fail”.

Quoter shall document past performance references using Volume II – Past Performance on the ATTACHMENT 4: Quote Response Guide. Each reference shall be no more than two pages in length.

NASA has the discretion to reach back out to all agencies identified POCs for any past performance reference and inquire additional information. If NASA is unable to assign a rating based on the past performance reference(s) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), NASA will reach out to the POC(s) and consider that information in its ultimate rating decision.

Volume III Technical Quote (Criteria 1)

Criteria 1a – Corporate Experience

The Quoter shall complete Section I Criteria 1a - Corporate Experience on ATTACHMENT 4:

Quote Response Guide under Volume III Technical Quote. All fields shall be completed.

Criteria 1b – Key Personnel

The Quoter shall complete Section II Criteria 1b – Key Personnel on ATTACHMENT 4: Quote Response Guide under Volume III Technical Quote. All fields shall be completed.

Criteria 1c – Capability and Understanding

The Quoter shall complete Section III Criteria 1c – Capability and Understanding on ATTACHMENT 4: Quote Response Guide under Volume III Technical Quote. All fields shall be completed.

Volume IV Price Quote Template (Criteria 2)

Quoter shall submit a Price Quote using the ATTACHMENT 2: Price Quote Template. All cells shall be completed in accordance with the Price Quote Template “Instructions” tab. Including Basis of Estimate (BOE) Section for Medical Director and EAP Support.

QUOTE EVALUATION CRITERIA

Addendum to 52.212-2

Basis of Award

Award shall be made to the responsible Quoter whose quotation, in conforming to this RFQ and the Instructions to Quoters, provides the overall best value to the Government, non-price criteria, and price considered. The Government’s objective is to obtain high technical quality, considered necessary to achieve the requirement’s objectives, with a reasonable firm fixed price.

Past Performance (Volume II) Gate

NASA will evaluate each past performance reference to determine whether it is recent (the end date of the Quoters past performance reference falls within the past five (5) years of the RFQ issue date) and relevant in terms of size, scope and complexity. References deemed not recent and/or not relevant will not be considered for further evaluation and will receive a “Not Applicable/Neutral/Pass” rating.

NASA will rate relevant past performance references by reviewing the corresponding CPARs assessment ratings and comments. NASA may inquire with each past performance reference to learn more about the Quoters’ performance. If NASA is unable to assign a rating based on the past performance reference(s) and CPARS, NASA will reach out to the agencies POC(s) and consider that information in its ultimate rating decision. If NASA is unable to find any information on the Quoters’ performance, it will rate the Quoters with a “Not Applicable/Neutral/Pass” rating for past performance.

Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of NASA’s confidence in the Quoters’ ability to meet technical requirements, deliver quality service, and meet schedule requirements of this requirement.

Note-If Quoters do have recent and relevant past performance references and opt to not submit it as part of their quote in order to obtain a rating of “N/A,” they will receive a Past Performance rating of “Fail”.

A past performance that is rated “Fail” will be eliminated from further evaluation.

NASA will use the ratings below to assess the aforementioned evaluation criteria:

Volume II: Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Definition

Pass

The past performance is recent and relevant. Past performance ratings (CPARS) for the following areas are Satisfactory or better: a) quality b) schedule c) management. Any issues encountered in the past performance record were minor concerns and had effective corrective actions undertaken by the Quoters that resolved the underlying issue(s).

Fail

The past performance is recent and relevant. Past performance ratings (CPARS) in any one of the following three areas are below Satisfactory: a) quality b) schedule and c) management.

Any issues encountered in the past performance record were major concerns or had ineffective corrective actions undertaken by the Quoters that did not resolve the underlying issue(s).

Not Applicable/Neutral/Pass (N/A) *

Either the past performance is not recent and/or not relevant, or NASA was unable to find sufficient past performance information to evaluate for any number of reasons including but not limited to not being able to contact the POC, a lack of information in the CPARS reference, etc.

*Note- NASA will not adversely rate contractors who receive a Not Applicable/Neutral/Pass rating for Past Performance. Instead, for Quoters whose past performance was rated N/A, NASA’s overall Pass/Fail decision will be based on the two remaining evaluation criteria (Technical Quote and Price Quote). However, if Quoters do have recent and relevant past performance references and opt to not submit any past performance references as part of their quote, they will receive a Past Performance rating of “Fail” for Past Performance.

Evaluation Criteria 1a: Technical Quote – Corporate Experience

NASA will evaluate how well the Quoter demonstrates experience performing Occupational Health Medical Director and EAP within the last five years at Federal agencies. NASA will assess the relevance, completeness, and clarity of corporate experience listed in the Quote Response Guide. NASA will evaluate the extent to which the Quoter’s prior work: Aligns with the specific PWS work area, demonstrates understanding of federal regulatory framework identified in the PWS, and show evidence of capability related Medical Director – level responsibilities. NASA will consider whether the Quoter provides clear examples tied to federal agencies, and accurate correlation between the “Yes” entries and the required synopsis.

Evaluation Criteria 1b: Technical Quote – Key Personnel

NASA will evaluate the qualifications, experience, education, credentials, and commitment level of the proposed Medical Director. NASA will evaluate whether the proposed Key Personnel meet all PWS qualifications, the strength of the rationale for selecting the candidate, the relevance of the candidate’s experience to Medical Director responsibilities (oversight, compliance, clinical programs, emergency readiness, mental health/EAP oversight, etc.), and the availability and commitment of the individual for the period of performance.

NASA will not evaluate resumes.

Evaluation Criteria 1c: Technical Quote – Capability to Perform and Display Understanding of the Requirements

NASA will evaluate the Quoter’s overall technical approach, including both capability to perform and depth of understanding of the Medical Director and EAP PWS requirements.

Evaluators will review whether the narrative:

• Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the performance work statement.

• Addresses required regulatory frameworks (NPRs, OSHA, CDC, HIPAA, Privacy Act, 5

CFR 792, 42 CFR Part 2).

• Shows a thoughtful, and non-boilerplate approach (not just restating the PWS).

• Provides clear methods, tools, approaches, communication strategies, and processes to ensure compliance and continuity of service.

• Identifies risks and provides feasible mitigation strategies for uninterrupted Occupational

Health and EAP operations.

NASA will assess the quality, completeness, efficiency, consistency, and thoroughness of the approach and whether it contributes demonstrable value to NASA.

Evaluation Criteria 2: Price

Price will not receive any sort of adjectival rating. NASA will judge price strictly on the total value of all base year and option year items. Each Quoter’s overall price must be reasonable as it relates to the size, scope, and complexity of this order to receive consideration for this award.

Option prices shall not be unbalanced. Price will become more significant as a distinguishing factor if the difference between Quoters’ technical quote criteria 1a, 1b, and 1c are negligible.

Evaluation Rating System

The Government will use the ratings below to assess the aforementioned evaluation criteria. The technical evaluation criteria ratings apply to evaluation criteria 1a, 1b, and 1c.

Criteria 1a: Technical Quote – Corporate Experience

Rating Definition

Exceptional

The Quoter’s corporate experience exceeds essentially all PWS-related requirements. Submissions show excellent understanding, demonstrate multiple clear advantages, and provide strong, relevant federal experience in all Occupational Health Medical Director and EAP competency areas.

The approach reflects a very low risk of unsuccessful performance.

Very Good

The Quoter’s corporate experience meets all and exceeds some requirements. The submission shows good understanding with some meaningful advantages. Experience is relevant and demonstrates low-performance risk.

Satisfactory

The Quoter’s corporate experience meets all requirements and shows an adequate understanding. Advantages are minimal or offset by minor disadvantages. Experience is relevant but without notable strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Marginal

The Quoter’s corporate experience meets some but not all requirements.

Understanding appears limited or incomplete. No meaningful advantages are evident, and minor disadvantages may be present. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Unacceptable

The Quoter fails to meet most requirements and demonstrates inadequate understanding. No advantages are present, and disadvantages are significant. Experience does not support the PWS.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Criteria 1b: Technical Quote – Key Personnel

Rating Definition

Exceptional

The proposed Medical Director’s qualifications, experience, education, and credentials exceed essentially all requirements in the PWS. The submission shows a clear, excellent understanding of Medical Director responsibilities. Numerous advantages and very low risk related to availability, capability, and leadership.

Very Good Key Personnel meet all and exceed some requirements. The submission shows good understanding, offers some clear advantages, and reflects a strong likelihood of successful performance with low risk.

Satisfactory Key Personnel meet all requirements. Understanding is adequate, but advantages are minimal or offset by minor weaknesses. Overall performance risk is low.

Marginal Key Personnel meet some but not all PWS requirements. Understanding appears partial or limited. Submission shows no advantages and small disadvantages. Performance risk is moderate.

Unacceptable Key Personnel fail to meet required qualifications or demonstrate poor understanding of PWS responsibilities. Significant disadvantages exist, and performance risk is high.

Evaluation Criteria 1c: Technical Quote – Capability to Perform and Display Understanding of the Requirements

Rating Definition

Exceptional

The Quoter’s technical narrative exceeds essentially all requirements and demonstrates excellent understanding of the PWS, regulatory frameworks, and operational complexities. The approach is thoughtful, innovative, realistic, and offers numerous advantages with very low risk.

Very Good The Quoter meets all and exceeds some requirements. The approach shows good understanding, includes some innovative or value-added elements, and demonstrates low-performance risk.

Satisfactory The Quoter meets all requirements. The approach is adequate, though advantages are minimal and may be offset by minor disadvantages. The narrative shows basic understanding of regulatory frameworks and PWS functions. Risk is low.

Marginal

The Quoter meets some but not all requirements. The narrative shows marginal understanding of PWS responsibilities or insufficient detail regarding tools, staffing, processes, and regulatory compliance. Risk is moderate.

Unacceptable

The Quoter fails to meet most requirements and demonstrates inadequate understanding. The narrative parrots the PWS, lacks detail, or omits key regulatory or operational elements. Significant disadvantages present high risk.

Evaluation and selection will be made on the basis of the best value to the government.

The government does not plan to solicit revised quotations. Unless it is later determined to be in the best interest to the government.