Evaluation Factors v9.pdf

1 | P a g e

PART I – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal, when conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government. The evaluation factors for this requirement are: 1) Technical Capability; 2) Past Performance; 3) Price. The evaluation factors assess all factors with Technical Capability and Past Performance being considered more important than Price. Technical Capability as the most important and Price as the lowest importance. Past Performance will be evaluated on a four (4) level adjectival rating scale. At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, this requirement may be awarded without discussions. Also, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, competitive range may be performed for the purpose of efficiency.

A. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY – Technical Capability must be presented to the Government in a written format describing the offer’s understanding of the requirement and a description of the offerors technical expertise for meeting the requirement in the Statement Of Work as outlined in the solicitation. At a minimum, the following factors below should be addressed in the proposal. The responses to each section listed below must contain a description of the services being offered with enough detail for the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) to determine that the offeror can meet the requirements of the solicitation. The offeror should thoroughly review the Statement of Work when submitting their proposal.

1. MEDICAL OVERSIGHT AND TRAINING

• Provide Medical Program Oversight for fifteen (15) SOG medics and one hundred twenty-five (125) OMSU medics

• Develop, implement, maintain, and oversee the USMS electronic patient care record and reporting system

• Provide USMS the necessary subject matter expertise to develop, maintain, and oversee agency-wide treatment protocols

• Provide an Emergency Medicine Physician 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week

• Conduct two (2) 40-hour Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) refresher classes per year that meet the 24-hour (NREMT) requirements and one (1) 40-hour OMSU class

• Provide clinical training for EMTs in an accredited Level 1 adult and pediatric trauma center

2. KEY PERSONNEL:

• The following contractor personnel are designated as key personnel and considered essential to the work performed

• The Emergency Medicine Physician must possess the following mandatory qualifications

• Any changes to key personnel shall be reported to the CO immediately per

2 | P a g e

3. OTHER PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

• All physicians performing on this contract must possess a valid Drug

Enforcement Agency (DEA) license and the ability to procure narcotic medications

• All physicians performing on this contract must pass a thorough background investigation, possess a valid state Medical license and Emergency Medicine Board certification from either Maryland, Virginia or District of Columbia

• Physicians must be capable of satisfying EMS medical direction

• Faculty physicians must be proficient in medical ultrasound and be actively engaged in research involving tactical medicine must be published within the last ten (10) years

4. MANDATORY CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

• The contractor must have a formal agreement with an academic Level 1 Adult and Pediatric Trauma/Medical Center within the Baltimore- Washington metropolitan area

• Contractor shall possess Advanced Post-Graduate Fellowship training programs

• The contractor shall operate a standing, dedicated medical communications center

Technical Capability will be scored on a four (4) level adjectival rating scale*:

Adjectival

Rating Definition

Exceptional

The proposal is exceptional because it demonstrates an outstanding understanding of the Government's technical requirements and contains strengths that significantly exceeds the performance /capability standards. The proposals do not contain any weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good

The proposal is good because it demonstrates understanding of the Government's technical requirements; although it has weaknesses that may affect the performance/capability standards that may be correctable. The proposal contains strengths and weaknesses and no deficiencies.

Acceptable

The proposal is acceptable because it demonstrates understanding of the Government's minimum technical requirements but contains no strengths that may affect the performance/capability standards. The proposals contain no strengths or deficiencies. The proposal primarily has weaknesses with no strengths or deficiencies.

Unacceptable

The proposal is unacceptable because it does not demonstrate understanding of the Government's technical requirements and will negatively affect the performance/capability standards. The proposal primarily contains deficiencies. Any deficiencies will result in an

3 | P a g e unacceptable rating. Any proposal that receives this rating will not be considered for award.

*If an offeror’s proposal contains more than the minimum technical requirements that significantly exceeds the performance /capability standards the additional capabilities may be considered a strength.

B. PAST PERFORMANCE – In investigating an offeror’s performance under contract, the Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s past performance by utilizing assessments from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and any Federally-managed exclusion list. Performance assessments with previous experience in a Tactical Emergency Program with a focus on law enforcement operations within the past five (5) years will be reviewed and utilized in this evaluation. The assessment of the offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the offeror.

In the case of an offeror without a record of past performance or for whom no information on past performance is available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a rating of “Neutral.” Neutral is associated with an unknown performance risk that will be taken into consideration during the evaluation phase.

Past performance will be evaluated on a five (5) level adjectival rating scale.

Any proposal that does not demonstrate a satisfactory or higher performance on at least three (3) assessments (within the past five (5) years) will receive an “Unsatisfactory” rating for the past performance factor.

Past performance risk will be evaluated on the following five (5) level adjectival rating scale:

Adjectival Rating Definition

Low Risk

Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, no issues, concerns, or risks exist that indicate the Offeror will not successfully perform the required effort. Past performance record indicates that the Offeror is more than capable of exceeding the requirements of the contract.

Moderate Risk Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, some doubt exists as to whether that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Risk Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, there is a large amount of risk associated with the Offeror being able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unsatisfactory Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, the Offeror is unable to successfully perform the required effort.

4 | P a g e

Unknown Risk No information regarding the Offeror’s past performance was available to base a meaningful performance risk assessment. A search was unable to identify past performance information for the Offeror.

Overall past performance will be evaluated on the following three (3) level adjectival rating scale:

Adjectival Rating Definition

Acceptable The past performance record represents that the Offeror is capable of adequately performing the requirement. This rating indicates a low to moderate level of performance risk to the Government.

Unacceptable

The past performance record represents that the Offeror is not capable of performing the requirement at a low to moderate level of performance risk.

This rating indicates an unacceptable high to unsatisfactory level of performance risk to the Government.

Neutral No information regarding the Offeror’s past performance was available to base a meaningful performance assessment. A search was unable to identify past performance information for the Offeror.

C. PRICE – Each price proposal will be evaluated on one or more of the following basis: a comparison of the proposed price with the prices proposed by other offerors, the Government’s estimate, consideration of current prices being paid for the same or similar services, current market conditions, as well as other methods at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

BASIS FOR AWARD

The contract will be awarded to the offeror whose proposal is considered most advantageous to the Government and at the discretion of the Contracting Officer may be awarded without discussions.

The Government will assess all factors with Technical Capability and Past Performance more important than Price. Technical Capability as the most important and Price as the lowest importance.

All responsible sources that can meet the requirements and provide items as listed above may respond to this solicitation by submitting a price quote and technical proposal. To be eligible for award under this solicitation, the offeror must be listed with active status on the System for Award Management website - www.SAM.Gov .

PART II – INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

A. Solicitation Clause 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items

In addition to the instructions listed below, all offerors are required to follow the terms http://www.sam.gov/

5 | P a g e and conditions listed in solicitation clause 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, which is part of the solicitation.

B. Proposals shall be submitted in two (2) separate volumes as follows:

Offerors shall prepare their proposals simply and economically by providing a straight-forward, concise delineation of capabilities. Therefore, proposals should be practical, legible, clear, coherent and free of spelling errors.

• Volume 1 – Technical Capabilities o Volume One (1) shall not exceed Thirty-five (35) total pages, not including the requested number of resumes for the Key Personnel and cover page. If more than thirty-five (35) pages are submitted with Volume One (1), the additional pages will NOT be reviewed and considered part of the offeror’s proposal. All pages shall be single sided, 8-1/2” x 11”, no foldouts, twelve (12) point New Times Roman font, single spaced. However, smaller fonts are permitted for graphics images and charts. Pages shall have a minimum ½” margin all around. An offeror must provide their DUNS Number, Tax ID Number, Cage Code on the cover page.

• Volume 2 – Price o Offerors must submit one (1) copy of their Pricing Schedule. An offeror’s proposal should reflect discounts. The contractor must provide a “total” price for all products and/or services. This includes for the base year with options.

C. Communications/Questions/Inquires:

Offerors shall submit their offers via email to Bradford Kelly at Bradford.Kelly@usdoj.gov.

All questions concerning the solicitation must be submitted in writing. The question and answer period for this solicitation will be from November 13, 2020 to November 15, 2020. Questions will NO LONGER BE ACCEPTED by offeror’s after November 15, 2020 at 5PM EST. Written inquires will be answered in writing via amendment. All questions should be submitted to Bradford.Kelly@usdoj.gov . Answers to questions will be provided to all offerors being solicited.

D. Solicitation:

The solicitation for this requirement will be posted to Beta. Sam (formerly FedBizOps (FBO)) from November 13, 2020 to November 20, 2020. All adjustments to the solicitation will be done in writing via amendment. The solicitation for this requirement will close on November 20, 2020 at 12PM EST. Offeror proposals WILL NOT be accepted after that time frame.

mailto:gregory.hermsen@usdoj.gov mailto:Bradford.Kelly@usdoj.gov