FA810126R0004 – Request for

Proposal Tinker AFB, OK

Paramedics and Ambulance Services

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS - COMMERCIAL ITEMS

General Information: The Government plans to issue a single purchase order for Paramedics and

Ambulance Services for TAFB. This firm-fixed-price type contract will include a 1-year basic period and three 1-year option periods. The Contracting Officer (CO) is the sole point of contact for this acquisition.

Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CO and Contract Specialists (CS) listed below in

1.1.

1.1 Addendum to 52.212-1 (b), Submission of proposals. Only electronic versions of proposals will be accepted.

Paper copies or hand carried proposals will not be considered for award. Submit signed and dated offers no later than 4:00 PM CDT on 13 October 2026 via email to:

• Robin Adee (CO) at robin.adee@us.af.mil

• Simon Montalvo (CS) at simon.montalvo@us.af.mil

1.2 All proposals shall be submitted as complete, clearly presented, and contain sufficient detail for effective evaluation as detailed in Addendum to 52.212-2 of this solicitation.

1.3 The proposal submission shall include:

1.3.1 General documents.

1.3.1.1 A signed and dated cover letter to include company name, address, phone number, name of authorized agent, company CAGE Code, and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI).

1.3.1.2 Completed Certifications and Representations. This RFQ includes provisions that the offeror must fill in. Proposals shall contain the completed representations unless the offeror has already completed the representations in SAM. If the representations are in SAM, please state such in the cover letter.

1.3.1.3 Proposal. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these 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.

1 July 2026 mailto:robin.adee@us.af.mil mailto:simon.montalvo@us.af.mil

1.3.2 Technical Acceptability Submission: The offeror shall submit the following to demonstrate technical capability and clinical readiness:

• A sufficient manpower and organizational approach, which ensures all workload requirements are met IAW PWS 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22 and 1.23.

• An active and valid ambulance service license from the Oklahoma State Department of Health, EMS Division.

• Proof of Malpractice Insurance (IAW PWS 1.3.2).

• Pre-hospital Protocols (IAW PWS 1.6.1): The offeror's established clinical protocols covering all emergency scenarios required by the PWS.

• Mission Essential Services Plan (IAW PWS 1.25.1 & DFARS 252.237-7023): A written plan ensuring continued support during a crisis.

1.3.2.1 The Technical volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for the technical proposal evaluation, which is not found the Technical volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal, and will not be considered in the technical evaluation. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted when its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. The Past Performance and Price evaluation will utilize information from each’s respective volume for the evaluation but may also utilize information from other volumes as well.

1.3.3 Past Performance Submission:

The Government will evaluate past performance primarily utilizing data obtained from the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other Government databases. To facilitate this, the offeror shall submit a list of no more than three (3) recent and relevant contracts performed for Federal, State, local governments, or commercial customers using the Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) – ITO Attachment 1.1.

Recency: Contracts must have been performed, in whole or in part, within the last three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

Required Information: For each reference, provide at a minimum the Contract Number, Agency/Company Name, Point of Contact (Name, Email, Phone), Annual Contract Value, and a brief description of the emergency medical/ambulance services provided.

If an offeror does not have a CPARS record for a submitted reference, they may submit a Past

Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) - ITO Attachment 1.2 completed by the client.

The Past Performance volume shall include a team list, which includes the prime contractor, all significant subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform the work outlined in the solicitation. The offeror shall describe the portion of effort each team member is proposed to perform.

1.3.4 Price:

1.3.4.1 A completed Attachment 1 - FA810126R0004 Standard Form 1449. Do not use any other document for price submission. Pricing information should not be included in any area other

1 July 2026 than the Price Volume. Although your company proposal sheet may also be included, only the

Attachment 1 pricing will be evaluated.

1.3.4.2 SCA: It is the responsibility of the Offeror and the subsequent contract awarded to comply with the Services Contract Act (SCA). In this section of the Price Volume, a table shall be provided conforming (linking) the Offeror’s proposed job categories/skill levels considered subject to the SCA with the job categories/skill levels of the Wage Determination (WD). This cross-reference provides a tie between the labor categories/skill levels proposed and the labor categories/skill levels listed in the SCA Wage Determination (Attachment 4).

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION FACTORS - COMMERCIAL ITEMS

Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items.

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1 This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for the best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between past performance and price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the

Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (RFO) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the

Government.

1.2 Under this Performance Price Trade-off (PPT) methodology, the Government reserves the right to award to a higher-priced offeror if that offeror has a superior Past Performance Confidence

Rating (e.g., 'Satisfactory Confidence) compared to a lower-priced offeror with a lower rating (e.g., 'Neutral Confidence'). The Source Selection Authority will determine if the clinical and operational risk reduction associated with the superior past performance record justifies paying the price premium.

1.3 Prior to being evaluated for technical acceptability, the offeror, and subcontractors as required, must provide copies of their approved state license/certification to provide ambulance services from the Oklahoma State Department of Health EMS Division to be considered for the technical evaluation. Upon Government’s review and acceptance of such valid licenses/certifications via website:

https://oklahoma.gov/health/services/licensing-inspections/emergency-systems/ems-division.html

Offeror’s proposals will then proceed to the technical evaluation.

(NOTE: Failure to provide the required approved license/certification with the original proposal will result in the Offeror being un-awardable. Also, the Government will not accept proposals that state required license/certifications will be obtained prior to contract award or prior to commencement of full performance.)

2. Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.1. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off

1 July 2026 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm https://oklahoma.gov/health/services/licensing-inspections/emergency-systems/ems-division.html between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals. For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past

Performance) will be evaluated on a more important basis than Factor 3 (Price).

2.2 Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.5, listed below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings, along with supporting information, and

Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

2.3 Factor 1 – Technical

Technical acceptability is evaluated on a pass/fail basis. To be rated "Acceptable," the proposal must include all items listed in 52.212-1 paragraph 1.3.2. Furthermore, the Government will review the submitted Pre-hospital Protocols and Mission Essential Services Plan for clinical adequacy, feasibility, and compliance with local/state medical standards and the PWS. If the medical protocols are deemed clinically inadequate or present an unacceptable risk to personnel safety, the proposal will be rated "Unacceptable."

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.4 Factor 2 – Past Performance (PP)

2.4.1 Past Performance Evaluation (Confidence Assessment). The Government will evaluate the past performance of technically acceptable offerors to assign a performance confidence rating.

A. Recency: Performance must have occurred within the last three (3) years.

B. Relevancy: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the proposed requirement. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)), as defined in paragraph 4.3 of Addendum to FAR

52.212-1) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort.

The past performance information forms contained in ITO Attachment 1.1 of FAR 52.212-1

Addendum and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy:

TABLE 1 – RELEVANCY ASSESMENT

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

(R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given PP effort and the proposed requirement.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given PP effort and the proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the technical subfactors.

C. Quality: The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following quality assessment ratings

IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures:

TABLE 2 – PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESMENT

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting

(or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating

2.4.2. Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the

Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Satisfactory, or Limited Confidence, 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.

2.5. Factor 3 – Price:

The Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for reasonableness. Price reasonableness will be determined primarily by adequate price competition. In the absence of adequate competition, reasonableness may be determined by comparing the proposed price to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), or historical prices paid for similar services.

2.5.1. TEP:

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is a price which will be used strictly for evaluation purposes.

It is calculated based on the sum of the following items:

i. Addition of all Contract Line Items – Base and Option Year

ii. A six-month Extension of Services IAW FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option To

Extend Services, the pricing of which will be calculated by the Government using the final month price of Option Year 3 and multiplied by six (to represent a six-month extension). This extension is not priced by the Offeror but is calculated by the Government.

2.5.2. Price Submission:

The offeror will fill out the CLIN total amounts in Attachment 1 - FA810126R0004 Standard Form

1449. Do not use any other document for price submission. Pricing information should not be included in any area other than the Price Volume. Although your company proposal sheet may also be included, only the Attachment 1 pricing will be evaluated.

3. Final Award Decision:

After reviewing all the factors and subfactors stated above, the Government will make a best-value decision based on technical, past performance and a determination that the price is fair and reasonable.

ITO ATTACHMENTS

PAST PERFORMANCE PACKAGE ATTACHMENT

ITO Attachment – 1.1 PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FORM (PPIF)

ITO Attachment – 1.2 PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

ITO ATTACHMENT 1.1

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FORM

Provide the information requested in this form for each contract/program being described. Provide frank, concise comments regarding your performance on the contracts you identify. Request each offeror submit up to three PPIFs for the prime Contractor and up to three for each significant subcontractor/teaming partner.

A. Offeror Name (Company/Division): ____________________________

CAGE CODE: _______________________

DUNS NUMBER: _____________________

(NOTE: If the company or division performing this effort is different than the offeror or the relevance of this effort to the instant acquisition is impacted by any company/corporate organizational change, note those changes. Refer to the

"Organizational Structure Change History" you provided as part of your Past Performance Volume).

B. Program Title: ____________________________________________

C. Contract Specifics:

1. Contracting Agency or Customer: ___________________________

2. Contract Number: ________________________________________

3. Contract Type: __________________________________________ If multiple types (i.e. Firm-Fixed Price with Time & Material), list percentage and dollar amount of Firm-Fixed Price portion

4. Period of Performance: ____________________________________

5. Original Contract Dollar Value: __________________________ (Do not include unexercised options)

6. Current Contract Dollar Value: ___________________________ (Do not include unexercised options) If Amounts for 5 and 6 above are different, provide a brief description of the reason:

D. Brief Description of Effort as ____ Prime or ____ Subcontractor (Include performance considered most relevant to current acquisition)

E. Are there Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) or other Past Performance Reports available for this contract? ________ YES ________NO

F. Primary Customer Points of Contact: (For Government contracts provide current information on all individuals. For commercial contracts, provide points of contact fulfilling these same roles)

1. Program Manager, COR and/or Site Manager

Name: _____________________________

Telephone: _________________________

Email: _____________________________

2. Contracting Officer

Name: _____________________________

Telephone: ___________________________

Email: _______________________________

G. Address any technical (or other) area about this contract considered unique.

H. For each applicable technical factor, illustrate how your experience in this contract applies, if you are to perform the same effort on the proposed contract.

I. Specify, by name, any key individual(s) who participated in this contract and are to support the proposed effort.

Also, indicate their contractual roles for both acquisitions.

J. Describe the nature or portion of the work on the proposed effort to be performed by the business entity being reported here. Also estimate the percentage of the total proposed effort to be performed by this entity, and whether this entity will be performing as the prime, subcontractor or a corporate division related to the prime ( define relationship).

ITO ATTACHMENT 1.2

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

WHEN FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION IAW FAR 3.104

SECTION 1: CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

A. Contractor: ______________________________________________________________________________

B. Cage Code of contractor contract was awarded to: _________________________________

C. Contract number: _______________________________________

D. Contract type: ______________________________

(If multiple types (i.e. Firm-Fixed Price with Time & Material), list percentage and dollar amount of Firm-Fixed Price portion)

E. Was this a competitive contract? Yes _____ No _____

F. Period of performance: _________________________________________________________

G. Initial contract cost: $____________________________

H. Current/final contract cost: $_______________________________

I. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs:

J. Description of service provided:

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

A. Customer or agency name: _________________________________________________________________

B. Customer or agency description (if applicable): _______________________________________________________________

C. Geographic description of services under this contract, i.e. local, nationwide, worldwide, other Commands:

SECTION 3. EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Evaluator's name: _________________________________________________________________________________

B. Evaluator's title: __________________________________________________________________________________

C. Evaluator's phone/fax number: _______________________________________________________________________

D. Evaluator’s email: ________________________________________________________________________________

E. Number of years evaluator worked on subject contract: _____________________________________

SECTION 4: EVALUATION

Please indicate your satisfaction with the contractor’s performance by placing an “X” in the appropriate block using the scale provided to the right of each question. This scale is defined as follows:

CODE PERFORMANCE LEVEL

B BLUE/EXCEPTIONAL - The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some or many

(requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

G GREEN/SATISFACTORY – The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Y YELLOW/MARGINAL – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

R RED/UNSATISFACTORY – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N NOT APPLICABLE - Unable to provide a score.

Subfactor 1 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

B G Y R N

1. Did the contractor adequately provide a qualified, experienced program manager who is knowledgeable and able to meet program milestones, requirements, resolve problems, communicate with customer and report program status.

2. Did the contractor hired and retained field workers with appropriate technical skills and training commensurate with those required for successful project completion.

3. Did the contractor adequately manage and smoothly transition resources and personnel during contract transistion.

4. Did the contractor identified risks/problems as they occurred and offered constructive and/or viable solution/alternatives.

5. Did the contractor’s on-site supervisor displayed initiative to resolve problems on-site.

6. Did the Contractor provided the required Reports/Documentation as required in the contract.

Subfactor 2 QUALITY CONTROL

B G Y R N

7. Did the contractor provided and followed effective quality control plan and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements.

8. Did the contractor deliver a quality service that was apparent in day-to-day operations.

9. Did the contractor corrected deficiencies in a timely manner and pursuant to their quality control procedures.

10. Did the contractor maintained a quality workforce and subcontractors through project completion.

11. Did the contractor responded to problems and took appropriate action to correct performance issues and satisfied customer concerns in a timely manner.

Factor 3 Price Performance

B G Y R N

12. Were funds status reporting accurate and timely? If not, please explain.

13. Did the contractor promote savings for the customer and ensure best value commercial pricing in proposals? Please explain.

14. Did the contractor adhere to contract price/cost of the orginial contract? If not, please explain.

15. Were invoices submitted in a timely manner with no errors?

16. Was the contractor ever issued a cure or show cause notice under the referenced contract? If yes, explain outcome in "Remarks."

17. Would you award another contract to this contractor? If not, explain in "Remarks."

2. Please discuss each and every response for which you indicated B/E (Blue/Exceptional), Y/M (Yellow/Marginal) or R/U

(Red/Unsatisfactory) in response to the questions above (use additional sheets, if necessary).

3. Government Contracts Only: Has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations?

Yes___ Default/Cause___ Convenience___ Pending Terminations___

No ___

If yes, please explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules, etc).

SECTION 5: NARRATIVE SUMMARY

What were the contractor’s most positive aspects in the performance of the contract?

What were the contractor’s most negative aspect in the performance of the contract?

Would you have any reservations about soliciting this contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

Please provide any additional comments concerning this contractor’s performance, as desired.

Evaluator’s Signature Date

Thank you for your prompt response and assistance!