Attachment B - Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Factors.docx

Attachment B Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Factors for Joint Trauma Analysis and Prevention of Injury in Combat (JTAPIC) Internal Program Management Support (JIPMS)

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Point of Contact (POC): Questions and proposals shall be sent via email to the POC for this Request for Proposals (RFP), Mr. Marc Mitchell, marc.l.mitchell.civ@health.miil. The Offeror is responsible for verifying receipt by the POC. The Contracting Officer for this acquisition is Ms. Terrie Bloom.

Proposal Questions: Any questions shall be submitted to the Government POC (Mr. Mitchell) via email No Later Than (NLT) 31 July 2025 at 1400 hrs Eastern Time. Follow-up/additional questions will not be accepted after this date. Answers to Offeror submitted questions will be provided via RFP amendment.

Proposal Due Date: NLT 11 August 2025 at 1400 hrs Eastern Time

Electronic Submission: Proposals shall be electronically submitted to the POC above. Submissions should include two separate proposal sections: a Cost/Price proposal and a Non-Cost/Price proposal. The Non-Cost/Price proposal shall be submitted in MS Word 2010 or higher or searchable PDF format. The Cost/Price proposal shall be submitted in MS Word or MS Excel 2010 or higher format. The firewall utilized by the Government contracting office does not authorize or accept zip files.

System for Award Management (SAM): Contractors must be registered in the SAM database to be considered for award. Registration is free and can be completed on-line at http://www.sam.gov; provide DUNS number; Cage Code and TIN.

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation: This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial products or commercial services prepared in accordance with the format in subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

Simplified Acquisition Procedures: The RFP is being issued using Simplified Acquisition Procedures under the authority of FAR subpart 13.5.

2. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND FORMAT INSTRUCTIONS

The Offeror’s submission shall include two separate sections: a Non-Cost/Price proposal and a Cost/Price proposal.

Administrative Format Instructions:

Page Limits: Non-cost/price proposals are limited to 30 single-sided pages with no less than 1.15 line spacing. Pages should be numbered consecutively throughout the document and not by sections. The following sections are not subject to the 30 page limit listed above:

· Table of Contents

· Title Page

· Offeror POC Cover Page

· Draft Program Management Plan (shall not exceed 7 single sided pages)

· Draft Quality Control Plan (QCP) (shall not exceed 2 single sided pages)

· OCI Certification

· Past Performance

Formatting: Proposal content shall be no smaller than size 12 font with 1” margins and no less than 1.15 line spacing. Exhibits, graphics, charts, captions, etc., shall be no smaller than size 10 font.

Non-Cost/Price Proposal Content Instructions:

The Offeror’s non-cost/price proposal shall clearly reflect the Offeror’s approach to execute and comply with the performance requirements identified in the PWS, regardless of the Government’s estimated effort. The Offeror’s non-cost/price proposal, including any supporting documentation, is to be clear and concise. The level of effort proposed must be consistent with the proposed solution outlined in the Offeror’s non-cost/price proposal.

The Offeror’s non-cost/price proposal shall contain the following:

I. TECHNICAL APPROACH: The Offeror’s proposal shall describe the Offeror’s technical approach which effectively demonstrates a complete understanding of all the PWS tasks and how the proposed approach is likely to yield the required results within the required time frame identified in this RFP. Additionally, the Offeror shall demonstrate the methodology and flexibility that will be used in accomplishing any resultant award.

II. EXPERIENCE: The Offeror shall submit written information, which effectively demonstrates the Offeror’s relevant corporate and personnel experience identical to, similar to, or related to performing services contained within the PWS. The proposal shall provide clear evidence of the Offeror’s experience (for this purpose, experience refers to what an Offeror has done, not how well it was accomplished) in performing the PWS tasks.

The Offeror’s relevant experience shall support and substantiate that the Offeror (to include support contractors, consultants, proposed personnel, and business partners) possesses the capabilities for assuring performance of the services within the PWS. The proposal shall demonstrate:

(a) Sufficient similar experience to ensure the Offeror and its team members possess the knowledge and expertise to perform the required services.

(b) Appropriate mix and balance of education and training of the Offeror’s team members

III. MANAGEMENT APPROACH: The Offeror shall submit written information describing its management approach, including an approach to staffing, which will lead to the successful accomplishment of the requirement.

The proposal shall explain how the chain of command practices will contribute in a positive manner to ensuring completion of all tasks with a focus on communications, accounting, cross checks on schedule early enough to take necessary corrective actions, and flexibility in allocating resources based on Government priorities.

The Offeror shall demonstrate how its approach to staffing will ensure that staff possess relevant experience inclusive of relevant education, training, credentials, and qualifications.

If applicable, the Offeror shall discuss its approach to coordinating, directing, and effectively managing all proposed subcontractors.

The Offeror shall submit a Draft Program Management Plan (PMP), which documents how the Offeror will meet and comply with the requirements within the PWS.

The Offeror shall submit a Draft Quality Control Plan (QCP) which documents how the Offeror will meet and comply with the quality standards established in the PWS. At a minimum, the QCP must include a self-inspection plan; an internal staffing plan; an outline of the procedures the Offeror shall use to maintain quality, timeliness, responsiveness and customer satisfaction; and any other requirements set for in the RFP. The Offeror’s QCP shall demonstrate and identify processes, procedures, and metrics, which are likely to result in successful outcome within cost and on schedule.

IV. PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES: The Offeror shall submit no more than three (3) references of relevant contracts within the past three (3) years for itself and any major subcontractors (defined as any subs completing 20% or more of the effort). The contracts may be past or current as long as the performance did not end more than three (3) years prior to the due date for the submission of this RFP. The contracts may have been with Federal, State and/or City agencies and commercial customers.

a. Reference Content: It is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide valid, current, and verifiable references. The format can be found in Attachment 2 – Past Performance References.

b. POCs: The above POCs must be either Government personnel (civil service or military) or employees of private sector clients (such as public or private sector medical facilities) with whom the Offeror has provided services. Information provided by or for POCs who work directly for the Offeror or indirectly (i.e. in a prime or subcontractor relationship), will NOT be considered relevant. Offerors shall ensure that contact information for designated references is accurate and up-to-date.

c. Information from Other Sources: The Government reserves the right to consider other past performance information at its disposal to include, but not limited to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), in addition to any information obtained from the references provided.

V. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) CERTIFICATION: The Offeror shall complete the OCI Certification form (PWS Attachment 1) and provide, if necessary, an OCI Avoidance or Mitigation Plan. Failure to provide this information may render an offeror ineligible for award.

VI. OFFEROR CONTRACT POC: The Offeror shall include POCs in the cover page to the non-cost/price proposal. The Offeror shall provide a POC authorized to hold discussions/negotiations with the Government who has the full authority to bind the Offeror to a contract. The Offeror shall also provide a POC who will be responsible for reviewing any applicable performance evaluation reports rendered by the Government. This will include electronic performance reports produced via the CPARS. This cover page is excluded from any non-cost/price proposal page limits. Information required includes: first name, last name, title, e-mail address, phone number, and level of authority.

VII. FILL-IN PROVISIONS: The Offeror shall complete and submit all applicable fill-in full-text provisions.

VIII. AMENDMENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT: If amendments to the RFP are issued, the Offeror shall submit with their non-cost/price proposal an acknowledgment of receipt for each amendment.

Cost/Price Proposal Content Instructions:

The Offeror shall submit a cost/price proposal to include proposal price assumptions, a price breakout that details pricing by labor category, labor rate, direct labor hours, and other direct costs. The Offeror’s cost/price will be evaluated separately from past performance and other non-cost/price factors and will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness using price analysis techniques.

The resultant contract shall contain FAR Clause 52-217-8, Option to Extend Services and the Government will evaluate using the Offeror’s proposed pricing for the last option year. By submitting a proposal for this requirement, the Offeror agrees to this inclusion of this clause in the resulting contract.

Other Direct Costs: The Government is providing the following “Plugged” Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts for ODCs per period of performance to include travel:

All ODCs shall be billed on a cost reimbursable basis. Offerors may propose one fixed rate to apply to any costs incurred for ODCs during each contract year. This will not be considered a provisional rate and will not be adjusted based on final rate agreements. If no rate is proposed, all ODCs will be billed at cost with no indirect rate applied.

Should an offeror choose to apply a fixed rate to ODCs, offeror shall provide documentation to support the proposed rate.

Pricing Worksheet: The Offeror’s proposal shall include a completed pricing worksheet in the attached format within Attachment 3 (first tab), Pricing Worksheet. The Offeror shall ensure mathematical computations are correct. Errors in addition or multiplication may be considered a reason to remove the Offeror’s proposal from the competition.

Offerors shall propose on all contract line items, either by price or Not Separately Priced (NSP). A line item price left blank will be considered incomplete and may not be considered for award.

Offeror’s proposals shall remain valid for a minimum of 90 days from the date of submission.

Supplemental Pricing Worksheet: The Offeror’s proposal shall include a supplemental pricing worksheet in the attached format with Attachment 3 (second tab) that provides a detailed breakdown of the Offeror’s proposed labor categories, labor hours, and burdened labor rates.

The Supplemental Pricing Worksheet shall include all other direct and indirect costs including materials, equipment, travel, shipping, and any other costs associated with the performance of the resulting contract. Offeror shall ensure mathematical computations are correct. Offerors shall define which labor categories will be performed by a subcontractor along with the subcontractor(s) company name. The Offeror shall provide a detailed breakdown of the proposed burdened labor rate for all proposed subcontractor labor.

Estimated Level of Effort: The Government estimates that this order will require an approximate level of effort, as outlined below, to accomplish the tasks identified in the PWS. The labor categories utilized in the below tables are reflective of labor categories utilized in the Government’s estimate and may not be reflective of the Offeror’s labor. The Government’s estimate is only put in place for Offerors to ascertain the approximate or estimated level of effort for the PWS tasks. However, this is not to be construed as either mandatory or necessarily the best technical approach. It is provided only as a reference to allow Offerors to better understand the general scope of this effort from the Government’s perspective. The Government is seeking the best level of effort and labor mix the Offeror has determined is required to successfully accomplish the scope of work in the PWS. Offerors are not bound to propose these labor categories or quantities; rather, Offerors are expected to provide their best solution citing the labor mix and quantity required to accomplish the scope of work.

Base Period (12 months):

(HOURS)

Total Yearly Estimate

The estimate for each Option Period is identical to the Base Period.

Note: For this requirement, the Government considers 1,920 as a standard Full Time Equivalent (FTE) per year.

Additional Information:

Alternate Proposals: Only one (1) proposal per Offeror will be accepted by the Government.

Incumbent: Services for this requirement were formerly provided under task order W81XWH-22-F-0320 with STS Systems Support, LLC. The period of performance of the task order ended on 29 October 2024. There are no incumbent staff.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS OF AWARD

Proposal Evaluation: The Government intends to award a contract without discussions to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the RFP will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Offerors shall provide their best, complete proposal upon initial submission. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions if deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer. A Technical Evaluation Panel will evaluate all proposals based on the proposals/documentation provided. The evaluations will be based on the evaluation criteria set forth below.

Basis for Award: Award of this contract will be made on a competitive best value basis, using “best value trade-off” among price and non-cost/price factors. The Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the Offeror with the highest rated non-cost/price proposal. Past Performance will be evaluated independently from the other non-cost/price evaluation factors using different standards. The non-cost/price evaluation factors are as follows:

(1) Technical Approach

(2) Experience

(3) Management Approach

(4) Past Performance

Government evaluators will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal.

After each of the above non-cost/price factors are rated individually, an overall rating will be assigned collectively to these factors. If any of the above non-cost/price evaluation factors receives an individual rating of “Unacceptable”, the collective overall rating will also be “Unacceptable”. Only proposals receiving an overall rating of “Acceptable” or higher will be considered for award. In addition, cost/price proposals that are not found fair and/or reasonable will not be considered for award. The non-cost/price factors are more important than cost/price.

As the collective non-cost/price factors begin to reach equality in the evaluation, cost/price becomes a more important factor in the trade-off analysis.

Non-Cost/Price Evaluation Criteria: The following criteria will be used to evaluate the non- cost/price aspects of the proposal.

(1) Technical Approach: The Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated for the degree to which it demonstrates the Offeror’s clear understanding of all PWS tasks and how the proposed approach is likely to yield the required results within the required time frame. Additionally, the Offeror’s methodology and flexibility that will be used in accomplishing any resultant award will be evaluated to determine overall likelihood of success. The detailed technical approach described for meeting all PWS task requirements will be evaluated for the degree of risk presented.

(2) Experience: The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for the degree to which its relevant corporate experience reduces overall proposal risk by demonstrating experience that is identical to, similar to, or related to performing services contained within the PWS (for this purpose, experience refers to what an Offeror has done, not how well it was accomplished).

The Offeror’s corporate experience, as well as experience of proposed support contractors, consultants, proposed personnel, and business partners, will be evaluated for:

· Evidence that the organization has current capabilities to successfully perform this requirement, including:

· Sufficient similar experience to ensure that the offeror has knowledge and expertise to perform the required services

· An appropriate mix and balance of education and training of team members

(3) Management Approach: The Management Approach will be evaluated to the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates the following:

a. A Draft PMP that documents how the Offeror will meet and comply with the requirements established in the PWS and will successfully manage and ensure performance.

b. Chain of command practices that will contribute in a positive manner to ensuring completion of all tasks, particularly emphasizing communications, accounting, cross checks on schedule early enough to take necessary corrective actions, and flexibility in allocating resources based on Government priorities.

c. Offeror’s approach to staffing that will lead to the successful accomplishment of the requirement.

d. Offeror’s approach to coordinating, directing, and effectively managing all subcontractors.

e. A draft QCP that demonstrates and identifies processes, procedures and metrics which are likely to result in successful outcome within cost and on schedule.

(4) Past Performance:

The Government will conduct a Past Performance evaluation of the Offeror’s Past Performance as well as that of its subcontractors. Past Performance that is considered relevant and recent will be evaluated to determine the overall performance confidence. Recency is defined as past performance efforts in the past three years. Common aspects of relevance include similarity of service/support, complexity, magnitude of effort, dollar value, and contract type. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s relevant references to determine the quality of work performed and assess the level of expectation that the Offeror can successfully perform the required effort.

The Government reserves the right to utilize other information not provided by the Offeror and may evaluate other information that is readily available. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Offeror will receive a neutral rating.

Past Performance will assess the overall risk and rate offeror as Acceptable, Unacceptable, or Neutral. If the Government’s level of expectation is that the offeror can successfully perform the required effort, past performance will be rated as Acceptable. If the Government’s level of expectation is that the offeror cannot successfully perform the required effort, past performance will be rated as Unacceptable.

Cost/Price Evaluation: The Offeror’s cost/price will be evaluated separately from past performance and other non-cost/price factors and will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The evaluated cost/price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness in terms of:

a. Level of effort, in that the proposed labor mix and labor hours are based on reasonable assumptions.

b. Consistency with the technical approach, in that the prices are consistent with and reflect the proposed staffing requirement for the base period and all option periods.

c. Total proposed price and burdened rates. Cost/price(s) that are unreasonable, not fully supported/substantiated, or both, may cause the overall technical evaluation to be adjusted in one (1) or more of the non-cost/price evaluation factors.

d. Fair and reasonable fixed rate for ODCs.

e. Evaluation of Extension of Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8. The Government will evaluate offers by establishing a Total Evaluated Price, which will consist of the total price proposed for all base contract line items, option contract line items, and the amount associated with FAR 52.217-8. The amount evaluated under FAR 52.217-8 will be calculated using the rates proposed for the last option period. The Government reserves the right to award all, none, or some of the option contract line items, or to shorten any option period of performance.

Rating Standards for the Non-Cost/Price Proposal:

Rating Standards for the Non-Cost/Price Proposal (Excluding Past Performance):

Past Performance Confidence Assessments Standards for the Non-Cost/Price Proposal:

Best Value Trade-off Evaluation Standard Definitions:

4. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Labor Categories and Descriptions

2. Past Performance References

3. Pricing and Supplemental Worksheet