Exhibit L-3 - RFP-Cross-reference Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 55 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HT940226R0001
- Issued by
-
Defense Health Agency
About this file
This file is an RFP Cross-Reference Matrix that serves as a navigational tool mapping RFP requirements to specific sections and exhibits within the solicitation documentation. It functions as an index that allows bidders to locate where particular contractual requirements, evaluation criteria, and instructions are addressed throughout the voluminous RFP package for the TRICARE Medicare Eligible Program Second Generation (TMEP2) acquisition.
The cross-reference matrix is designed to streamline the proposal development process by providing a systematic reference guide that correlates RFP sections with corresponding exhibits and attachments. For a complex health care claims processing and customer support contract of this magnitude—covering dual-eligible Medicare and TRICARE beneficiaries across multiple geographic regions with an 8.5-year potential period of performance—such a matrix is essential for ensuring bidders comprehensively address all stated requirements and understand how various RFP components interrelate. The matrix facilitates compliance verification and helps proposers organize their responses according to the structure established by the Defense Health Agency.
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Section_L
| Section L | |||
| Current Location | Task/Topic | Recommended Action | Rationale |
| L.3.1, L.3.2 | Communications & Questions | Create a new top-level section: "L.2 Communications & Solicitation Inquiries." Place these paragraphs here. | Centralizes all rules about who to contact and how to ask questions, making it the first stop for offerors with ambiguities. |
| L.2.2, L.2.1.9 | OCI & Org Chart Deadlines | Create a new top-level section: "L.3 Pre-Proposal Submissions & Deadlines." Move the OCI Plan (due 15 days prior) and the Org Chart (due 10 days prior) here. | These are critical, time-sensitive actions that must be completed before the final proposal submission. Isolating them prevents them from being missed. |
| L.1, L.2.1.7 | Clauses & Legal Notices | Create a new top-level section: "L.4 General Provisions & Notices." Move the list of FAR/DFARS clauses and other general notices here. | Groups the boilerplate legal framework of the solicitation in one place, separating it from the active instructions for proposal writing. |
| Current Location | Task/Topic | Recommended Action | Rationale |
| L.4.1, L.4.4 | Proposal Volumes & Page Limits | Create a new top-level section: "L.5 Proposal Organization & Formatting." Consolidate Table 1 (Volumes) and Table 2 (Page Limits) here. | Provides a clear, at-a-glance summary of the entire proposal structure and its constraints right at the beginning of the preparation instructions. |
| L.4.2 | Electronic Submission Method | Move this under "L.5 Proposal Organization & Formatting." | This paragraph details the specific mechanics of submitting the final electronic package (e.g., via DoD SAFE) and logically follows the formatting rules. |
| L.2.4 | Hardcopy Submission | Move this under "L.5 Proposal Organization & Formatting." | Consolidates all submission instructions—both electronic and physical—into a single, easy-to-find location. |
| L.2.1.2 | Award Without Discussions | Keep this within a "General Instructions" section but group it with related concepts. This is a core rule of the game. | This instruction is fundamental to the offeror's strategy and should be prominently featured in the main instruction set. |
| Current Location | Task/Topic | Recommended Action | Rationale |
| L.5 | Volume I: Executed Offer | Create "L.6 Instructions for Volume I." | Dedicates a clear, standalone section for each volume, making it easy for offerors to work through their proposal checklist. |
| L.6 | Volume II: Technical | Create "L.7 Instructions for Volume II." | Follows the logical sequence. |
| L.7 | Volume III: Past Performance | Create "L.8 Instructions for Volume III." | Follows the logical sequence. |
| L.8 | Volume IV: Price | Create "L.9 Instructions for Volume IV." | Follows the logical sequence. |
| L.9 | Volume V: Small Business | Create "L.10 Instructions for Volume V." | Follows the logical sequence. |
| L.10 | Volume VI: Financial Data | Create "L.11 Instructions for Volume VI." | Completes the volume-by-volume breakdown. |
Section_M
| Section M | ||
| Current Structure | Recommended Action & New Placement | Rationale |
| M.1 Clauses (FAR 52.217-5) | Move to M.8 (Factor 3: Price Evaluation). | Clause 52.217-5 dictates how options are evaluated for price. It is already referenced in M.8.4. Having it as a standalone M.1 paragraph interrupts the introductory flow and belongs with the Price criteria. |
| M.4, M.5, and M.6 (Technical Split) | Consolidate under a single Factor 1: Technical Approach heading. | Currently, the Technical Ratings (M.4), Technical Risk (M.5), and Subfactor criteria (M.6) are split. Nesting them under one unified Factor 1 heading ensures all technical grading instructions are localized. |
| M.6.1 (Missing) | Renumber M.6.2 to M.6.1. | The current draft skips from the M.6 heading directly to M.6.2. |
| M.7 (Reserved Sections) | Delete M.7.3.1.2, M.7.5.3, and M.7.5.5. | Unless these align with a mandatory DoD/DoW template, leaving blank "Reserved" paragraphs clutters the document and can cause confusion during the evaluation. |
| M.10 Financial Viability | Relocate to a separate Responsibility Determination section, clearly distinct from the Evaluation Factors. | Financial viability is a FAR Part 9 responsibility check (Pass/Fail) and is not part of the FAR Part 15 best-value tradeoff. Clearly demarcating this prevents industry from assuming it is a rated tradeoff factor. |
| Comment Reference | Strategic Topic | Gemini Enterprise Recommendation for Section M |
| [KM3] | Rating Methodology (Combined vs. Separate Tech/Risk) | The DoD Source Selection Procedures allow both. Recommend using the Combined Technical/Risk Rating to simplify the evaluation process, reduce documentation burden for the SSEB, and lower protest risk. If chosen, merge the tables in M.4 and M.5. |
| [GD13] | Subfactor 3 Importance (Management Functions) | If Subfactor 3 covers critical areas (Staffing, QM/QI, Program Integrity), the Contracting Officer should elevate its importance in paragraph M.3.3.1 to be equal to Subfactors 1 and 2, rather than "less important." |
| [GD18], [D20], [GD21] | Advisory Down-Select (First Gate) | Paragraph M.3 must be updated to explicitly state that the acquisition will utilize a FAR 15.202 Advisory Multi-Step process. Per the IPT's decision, clearly state that Subfactor 1 (Claims Processing) is the initial evaluation gate, not Past Performance. |
| [T24], [T25], [T27] | Price Evaluation of FAR 52.217-8 (50% Extension) | Paragraph M.8.1 currently adds "50% of the highest priced Option Period." This language must be crystal clear to industry to avoid unbalanced pricing. Ensure the formula mathematically aligns with the Section B Pricing Schedule. |
| [GD23] | Past Performance Recency | Define the recency period clearly in M.7.3.1. For a complex claims processing requirement, a three-year recency period from the date of RFP release is standard DoD practice. |
Adjusted for Recent Changes
| This requirements crosswalk is provided solely for the convenience of offerors. The Government does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Offerors are cautioned that use of this tool does not relieve them from the responsibility of thoroughly reviewing the solicitation and ensuring full compliance with all requirements therein. In the event of a conflict between the crosswalk and the solicitation text, the solicitation text shall govern. | |||||||
| Section L Paragraph # | Section L Language | Section M Paragraph # | Section M Language | Section C Requirement | TOM Reference | Offeror Proposal Reference | |
| Refer to L.2.1.1 for Instructions | Offeror Notes | ||||||
| Technical | |||||||
| L.6.1 | Offerors shall submit a written technical proposal addressing each of the subfactors below demonstrating the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation requirements and providing an effective and efficient technical approach to meet the solicitation requirements consistent with healthcare best practices and standards. | M.6.1 | The Government will evaluate Subfactors 1-4 to determine a combined technical/risk rating for each subfactor. Each technical proposal will be evaluated separately and will be evaluated solely on its own merits. The Government will consider the technical/risk rating in determining the best value to the Government. The Government will evaluate each proposal to determine how well an offeror’s proposed approach satisfies the Government’s requirements based on the evaluation criteria. When an offeror proposes to exceed a solicitation requirement, the Government will consider whether exceeding the requirement is advantageous to the Government. The Government reserves the sole right to determine whether exceeding a requirement is advantageous to the Government. The Government may assign multiple strengths to a subfactor; however, if the Government determines an aspect of the proposal to be a strength, that strength will be credited to only one subfactor. The Government will have the sole discretion in determining which subfactor the strength best fits. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. | ||||
| M.6.1.A | Technical Rating. The following definitions will apply when assigning technical/risk ratings to Subfactors 1 through 4: | ||||||
| · | Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit that will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance. |
· Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.
| · | Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See RFO FAR 15.001. | ||
| · | Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See RFO FAR 15.001. | ||
| · | Deficiency: Any part of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of a RFP. A material requirement is one that affects price, quantity, quality, or delivery, or that the RFP requires to be met at the time of proposal submission. See RFO FAR 15.001. | ||
| M.6.B | Combined Technical/Risk Ratings. The Government will assign a combined technical/risk rating to each of the technical subfactors. | ||
| M.6.C | Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method. |
See Section M.6.C for Table M.6.D Technical Risk Rating Method
See Section M.6.D for Table
| L.6.1.1 | The proposal may state information on the offeror’s experience (for this purpose, experience refers to what an offeror has done, not how well it was accomplished) in performing the proposed processes and procedures. This information may be considered in the evaluation of specific technical approaches and related technical proposal risk. However, any such information in the technical proposal will not be considered for the purpose of evaluating past performance as described in paragraph M.7. | ||||
| L.6.1.2 | The price proposal, past performance information, and financial information shall not be addressed in the technical proposal volume, and no part of the technical proposal shall be incorporated by reference in any other proposal volume. | ||||
| L.6.1.3 | The offeror may cross-reference information within the technical proposal rather than repeating the information (i.e., a cross-reference to another paragraph within the technical volume). A cross-reference to another volume is not allowed and will not be considered. | ||||
| L.6.2.1 | The offeror’s proposal shall describe how its proposed claims processes and methods will ensure claims processing timeliness and accuracy standards are met. The offeror shall describe how its processes will result in achievement of auto adjudication processing rates and how its processes will minimize reprocessing rates. The offeror shall explain whether it is proposing to use an existing claims processing capability/system and how, and to what an extent, it will program, configure, or adapt (as necessary) its existing system to apply TRICARE deductibles, co-pays, coinsurance, cost shares, and catastrophic caps (Section C.2.1.3.1) and unique elements of the TRICARE benefit. | M.6.2.1 | The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed claims processing capability/system, which will include evaluating the offeror’s proposed approach and methods for processing claims and how these processes and methods will result in the Offeror meeting claims processing timeliness and accuracy standards (Section C.2.1.3). The evaluation will include consideration of whether the offeror is proposing to use an existing claims processing capability/system and how, and to what an extent, the offeror will be required to program, configure, or adapt (as necessary) its existing system to apply TRICARE deductibles, co-pays, coinsurance, cost shares, and catastrophic caps (Section C.2.1.3.1) and unique elements of the TRICARE benefit. | Section C.2.1.3 | TOM, Chapter 20, Section 8 |
| L.6.2.2 | The offeror’s proposal shall describe how its claims capability/system will accommodate and incorporate changes to TRICARE claims processing requirements (such as those resulting from changes to the TRICARE manuals) from the initiation of work on the change through testing and implementation of the change. The offeror’s proposal shall address the timelines and processes associated with making such changes, particularly as applied to the scenario described below, and shall answer the scenario questions. |
The Government issues an urgent TRICARE Reimbursement Manual (TRM) update on a Tuesday that makes changes to the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) reimbursement methodology, effective immediately, to be implemented within 30 days. What are the exact steps your team will take to implement this change in your automated claims capability/system? Specifically, who will make the changes (e.g., a developer or a business analyst), how will you test it against historical data, and will making the change require you to implement any system downtime? M.6.2.2 The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed approach to accommodating and incorporating, within its claims processing capability/system, changes to TRICARE claims processing requirements (such as those resulting from changes to the TRICARE manuals) from initiation of work on the change through testing and implementation, to include consideration of the timelines and processes for executing the scenario changes described below. The evaluation will assess the relative overall adaptability of the offeror’s claims processing capability/system.
The evaluation will include consideration of the offeror’s response to the following scenario and associated questions:
| The Government issues an urgent TRICARE Reimbursement Manual (TRM) update on a Tuesday that makes changes to the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) reimbursement methodology, effective immediately, to be implemented within 30 days. What are the exact steps your team will take to implement this change in your automated claims capability/system? Specifically, who will make the changes (e.g., a developer or a business analyst), how will you test it against historical data, and will making the change require you to implement any system downtime? | Section C, Paragraph 2.1.3.6 | |
| L.6.2.3 | The offeror’s proposal shall describe its processes for: |
·Ensuring a service is medically necessary and a covered benefit (Section C, Paragraph .2.1.4.7) ·Processing authorization/pre-authorizations and including processes to accept authorizations from Managed Care Support Contractors (MCSC) (Section C, Paragraph 2.1.3.7.1.)
·Accurately processing claims in accordance with the preauthorization/authorization requirements when TRICARE is primary payer, including those related to Skilled Nursing Facility care. (Section C, Paragraph C.2.1.3.6) ·Completing appeals/reconsiderations (TOM, Chapter 20, Section 12)
M.6.2.3 The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed approach for:
· Ensuring a service is medically necessary and a covered benefit (Section C.2.1.4.7.)
· Processing authorization/pre-authorizations (TOM, Chapter 20, Section 7), including the process for accepting authorizations from the Managed Care Support Contractors (MCSC) (Section C.2.1.3.7.1.)
· Accurately processing claims in accordance with the preauthorization/authorization requirements when TRICARE is primary payer, including those relating to Skilled Nursing Facility care. (Section C.2.1.3.6.)
· Completing appeals/reconsiderations (TOM, Chapter 20, Section 12)
Section C.2.1.4.7 Section C.2.1.3.1.7.1 Section C.2.1.3.6 Section C.2.1.3.8 TOM, Chapter 20, Section 12
TOM, Chapter 20, Section 9
| L.6.2.3 Continued | ·Submitting TED records and meeting the TED timelines and accuracy standards. The offeror shall provide a detailed TED Record Creation and Validation Methodology. The proposal shall describe the end-to-end technical process the offeror will use for translating an adjudicated claim into a compliant TRICARE Encounter Data (TED) record in accordance with the TRICARE Systems Manual (TSM), Chapter 2. The offeror's narrative must specifically detail: (1) Data Mapping: How the automated claims system will extract data elements from a processed claim and map them to the required TED record format (Institutional/Non-Institutional fields). (2) Pre-Transmission Validation: The specific automated edit checks and "scrubbing" logic the system will apply internally before transmitting the record to DHA to minimize rejection rates. | M.6.2.3 Continued | ·Submitting TED records and meeting the TED timelines and accuracy standards (Section C.2.1.3.8.) The evaluation will include consideration of the offeror’s proposed approach for creating and validating TEDs records, to include evaluating the effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed end-to-end technical process for translating an adjudicated claim into a compliant TED record in accordance with TSM Chapter | ||||
| 2. The Government will also evaluate the methodology by which the offeror’s automated claims system will extract data elements from a processed claim and map them to the required TED record format, and the offeror’s approach to applying automated edit checks and “scrubbing” logic internally before transmitting records to DHA. | See above | See above | |||||
| L.6.3.1 | The offeror shall describe its approach for providing comprehensive customer service via multiple contemporary avenues of access. The approach shall include the types of customer services offered, the manner in which the services can be accessed, the availability of the services, how it will result in beneficiary and provider satisfaction and comply with customer service standards. The offeror shall also describe its approach for training and retaining customer service talent and for using customer service processes that comply with customer service standards. The offeror shall not propose its own beneficiary and/or provider surveys. | M.6.3.1 | The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed approach for training and retaining customer service talent and for utilizing customer service processes that comply with customer service standards. (Section C.2.2.1 and TOM, Chapter 20, Section 11). The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach for ensuring that its services produce high levels of beneficiary and provider satisfaction. | Section C.2.2.1 | TOM, Chapter 20, Section 11 | ||
| L.6.3.2 | The offeror shall describe its plan and timeline to create an internal beneficiary-facing website/platform, including its timeline for testing compliance with all applicable requirements and testing user accessibility. The offeror shall also describe how it will operate and maintain the platform/website. The proposal shall include a mockup of the website’s front page to demonstrate the offeror’s ability to meet the TRICARE brand standard and shall also describe the website’s proposed functionality and look, touch, and feel (and ease of use) for the user experience. | M.6.3.2 | The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed approach for creating, operating and maintaining a web platform/website for delivering customer services information to beneficiaries. (Section C.2.2.5.) As part of its evaluation, the Government will consider the proposed website’s functionality, to include the proposed look, touch, and feel for the user experience and the ease of access to information electronically. Finally, the Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s approach for meeting the TMEP2 development implementation timeline and complying with the TRICARE brand standard. (TOM, Chapter 20, Section 11) | Section C.2.2.5 | TOM, Chapter 20, Section 11 | ||
| L.6.3.3 | The mockup will be counted toward the offeror’s Technical Volume page limitation. Since the mockup is electronic it shall be submitted on 8½ by 11 inches in landscape orientation with one-inch margins on all sides as described in Section L.4.1.5. | ||||||
| L.6.4.1 | The offeror shall describe its proposed management approach to provide the necessary oversight and risk management in delivering high-quality services and achieving the solicitation requirements. The description shall address organizational structure, decision points, and quality and internal management controls. | M.6.4.1 | The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed management approach for ensuring necessary oversight, quality and internal management controls, and risk management in administering the requirements of the contract. | Section C.2.3.3 | |||
| L.6.4.2 | The offeror shall describe its management approach for hiring and retaining throughout the life of the contract, the necessary staff to achieve the requirements. The description shall include staffing models for each activity (including staffing levels), staff training and retention to ensure knowledgeable, courteous and responsive staff. | M.6.4.2 | The Government will evaluate whether the offeror is proposing an effective approach for hiring and retaining staff (including remote personnel) to achieve the solicitation requirements. (Section C.2.3) | Section C.2.3 | |||
| L.6.4.3 | The offeror shall describe its proposed program integrity approach to identify and implement cost-containment and anti-fraud strategies to combat and prevent unnecessary spending and the provision of non-medically necessary supplies or services in the TRICARE program. | M.6.4.3 | The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed program integrity approach for identifying and implementing cost-containment and anti-fraud strategies to combat and prevent unnecessary spending and the provision of non-medically necessary supplies or services in the TRICARE Program. (TOM, Chapter 20, Section 13) | TOM, Chapter 20, Section 13 | |||
| L.6.5.1 | The Offeror shall provide an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), which details the Offeror's approach to meeting transition in requirements (TOM Chapter 20). The IMP and IMS shall demonstrate the Offeror's approach to the Integrated Product and Process Development framework. The IMS, for purposes of the proposal, will be limited to a Level 3 work breakdown structure. The IMP and IMS must be congruent with and reference all contract transition requirements and Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) with due dates prior to the start of healthcare delivery. (Note: The IMP and IMS are separate attachments to the proposal which will not count towards the page limitation for the written technical proposal.) The offeror shall describe its approach to ensure services and systems are fully operational at the beginning of option period 1 with minimal disruption of services to beneficiaries and providers. The approach shall include but not be limited to timelines, resource allocation, hiring of staff, process for obtaining security clearances, establishment of a call center, and its process for end-to-end testing and validation of claims systems to ensure systems are ready at the start of option period 1, and its risk management approach for the 12-month transition period. | M.6.5.1 | The Government will evaluate the thoroughness and effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed Transition-In Plan and schedule, addressing all activities required from contract award through commencement of services, including the effectiveness of the Offeror’s plan to ensure a smooth ramp up of all required capabilities necessary to deliver all services and support described in the PWS. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Integrated Master Plan ((IMP) for compliance with stated contract transition-in requirements as described in TOM, Chapter 20, Section 2. (Section C.2.4.2) | Section C.2.4.2 | TOM, Chapter 20, Section 2 | ||
| L.6.5.2 | The offeror shall describe its plan to comply with all necessary Transition-Out requirements to include maintaining resources, services, and systems. | M.6.5.2 | The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed approach for maintaining staffing throughout the Transition-Out period to ensure compliance with the Transition-Out requirements. (Section C.2.4.8.) | Section C.2.4.8 | TOM, Chapter 20, Section 2 | ||
| Past Performance | |||||||
| L.7.1 | Offerors shall submit past performance information regarding similar contracts that are relevant to this solicitation. As used throughout Volume III, Past Performance, the term “offeror” applies to the prime contractor which may be an individual company, subsidiary, affiliate, or individual entity/entities of a joint venture, and any major subcontractor (defined as performing more than 15% of the work based on the total proposed price). Past performance shall be submitted for the offeror and its major subcontractors | M.7.1 | The Government will evaluate past performance information provided in accordance with Section L and other sources, to determine how well an offeror and any major subcontractor has performed in the |
past. The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. One (1) performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned for each offeror.
| M.7.1.A | When assessing the offeror’s performance confidence, the Government will use the offeror’s Performance Information, Volume III and associated PPQs. The Government may or may not, at its sole discretion also use past performance information from other customers, known to the Government, or found by the Government during evaluation such as: Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) and other sources of recent and relevant information including but not limited to the Government’s own internal records. | ||
| L.7.2 | Past Performance Contract Descriptions. The offeror shall provide contract descriptions for a maximum of three (3) recent and relevant contracts for itself and a maximum of two (2) recent and relevant contracts for its major subcontractor(s), if any. If the Government determines an offeror has exceeded the maximum, the Government will not evaluate the contracts over the maximum (5 total contract references). Each contract description shall not exceed four (4) pages and shall include the information below: | M.7.2 | The Government will evaluate a maximum of three (3) recent and relevant contract references for the Prime Offeror and a maximum of two (2) for each major subcontractor, in accordance with the limits established in Section L. |
| a. Contract number and, if applicable, task order number, and offeror’s/major subcontractor’s role (i.e., where they the prime, subcontractor, or other lower-tier participant). | |||
| b. Contract Type: Indicate the contract type based on RFO FAR 16. For example: Fixed price Advisory & Assistance Services; IDIQ with 5-year ordering period and 2 FFP Task Orders; or CPFF Services for base year and 2 option years. | |||
| c. The name and contact information for the client’s POC who can discuss the offeror’s or major subcontractor’s performance and contract standards/requirements and functions with the Government. The POC should be the same person who completes the Past Performance Questionnaire (See paragraph L.7.5 and L.7.6) for the offeror. The POC information shall include the POC’s name, title, role on contract, phone number, and mailing and email addresses. | |||
| d. Clearly indicate what the offeror’s performance responsibilities were/what aspects of the work it performed. Past performance references for teaming arrangements shall specifically indicate what roles each member was responsible for performing. | |||
| e. The start and end dates of the specific contract. If several consecutive contracts were awarded, the offeror shall include only the contract(s)/task order that falls within the three-year period of recency. | |||
| f. Total dollar value of the contract. If role performed was as other than as a prime, state the total contract dollar value and identify the dollar value of the subcontract the offeror performed under. | |||
| g. If any of the events listed below occurred during the contract period of performance, the offeror shall explain the circumstances and steps it took to mitigate, as appropriate: |
·Failure to meet the minimum performance standards in the referenced contract and actions taken to restore performance to an acceptable level.
·Any data breaches or unauthorized disclosures including Personally Identifiable Information (PII) or Protected Health Information (PHI).
·Contract option period was not exercised and reason.
·Assessment of liquidated damages, penalties, or other reduction against offeror.
·Any de-scoping of work and reason ·Withheld payments.
·A notice to cure, claim or lien against the offeror, or suspension of work due to offeror’s performance, schedule or quality issues.
| h. Past performance submissions must clearly define the contractor's specific roles and functions. The description shall specifically address past performance in claims processing, customer service, management functions and transition activities as relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. Within the narrative, the offeror is required to explain what aspects of the past performance are deemed relevant to the proposed efforts, and to what aspects the proposed efforts relate. | ||||
| i. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in resolving problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems resolved (i.e., submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators). | ||||
| L.7.3.1 | Recency. To be recent, past performance references submitted by offerors must be ongoing for at least six (6) months during the three (3) year period prior to the date in Block 6 of the SF 1449. The Government will not evaluate a reference that fails to meet this condition. Government may consider the entire period of performance of a contract to include the transition-in and transition-out periods for contracts meeting the recency requirement. | M.7.3.1 | Recency. The Government will only consider and evaluate recent past performance information. To be recent, the work must be on-going for at least six (6) months and performed within three (3) years of the date in Block 6 of the SF 1449. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be further evaluated or considered. | |
| M.7.3.1.A | If a past performance reference meets the recency criteria, the Government may consider the entire period of performance of the contract to include the transition-in and transition-out periods. Notwithstanding this provision, the Government will not consider past performance beyond 10 years of the above date. | |||
| L.7.3.2 | Relevancy. Past performance references submitted by offerors and other information collected by the Government will be evaluated for relevancy in terms of scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities as it relates to the requirements in this RFP. The offeror shall ensure its past performance references clearly demonstrate relevancy as it relates to this requirement. | M.7.3.2 | Relevancy. The Government will assess an overall Relevancy rating for each recent contract the offeror submitted in accordance with Section L.7.3.2.A2. Past performance that is more relevant is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance that is considered less relevant. The Government will assess relevancy based on those functions which are similar to those the offeror or the major subcontractor will perform on this solicitation. For example: the scope evaluation will be based only on consideration of prior call center performance if that is the only function the offeror will perform. |
Evaluation of relevance considers the scope, magnitude of effort and complexity of the past performance reference as it relates to the requirements for this RFP.
M.7.3.2.A The Government will assign one (1) of the relevancy ratings to each past performance reference.
See Section M.7.3.2.A for Table
| M.7.3.2.B | Past performance information deemed “Not Relevant” will not be further evaluated or considered. | ||
| M.7.3.2.C | Performance Quality. The Government will review recent and at least “Somewhat Relevant” offeror’s past performance to determine the quality of the offeror’s performance and general trends for consideration in the overall performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned. | ||
| M.7.3.2.D | If the Government identifies adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not had the opportunity to respond, the Government may notify the offeror of the findings and allow the offeror to comment on these negative findings. | ||
| M.7.3.2.E | In assessing quality of performance, the Government will also consider the offeror’s past performance in compliance with FAR Clause 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns; FAR Clause FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, including all subcontracting goals; and any contract monetary targets for Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program. | ||
| L.7.3.3 | An offeror without recent and/or relevant past performance may submit past performance information from another entity such as a predecessor company, a parent organization, a subsidiary, an affiliate, or a partner | M.7.3.3 | If an offeror without recent and/or relevant past performance submits past performance information from another entity such as a predecessor company, a parent organization, a joint venture member, subsidiary, an affiliate, or a partner, it will be considered in rendering a performance confidence level rating using the same criteria as defined in M.7.3.4.2. However, the consideration will take into account the amount of involvement the parent organization, subsidiary, affiliate, or partner will have in the daily operations of the offeror. It is the offeror’s responsibility to clearly set out the relevance to the day to day operations of the entity to performance of the TMEP 2 effort. The Government reserves the right to find an past performance effort as “Not Relevant” if the offeror fails to provide information sufficient to connect the relevancy of the entity to the TMEP 2 performance. |
| L.7.3.4 | Performance confidence assessment. The Government will use the offeror's past performance information, along with any other information obtained by the Government, in the overall performance confidence assessment. | ||
| M.7.3.4.A | The Government will assign one of the performance confidence ratings below to the offeror’s past performance proposal. | ||
| M.7.3.4.B | Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings |
See Section M.7.3.4.2 for Table)
| M.7.3.4.B.i | An offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will be assessed a “Neutral Confidence” performance confidence rating, and the Government will not evaluate the offeror’s past performance favorably or unfavorably (see RFO FAR 15.202(c)(1). The Government may still render a performance confidence level of “Neutral Confidence” if the submitted information is inadequate to reasonably make a meaningful confidence assessment rating. | |||
| L.7.4 | If the past performance contract reference submitted relates to an ordering type contractual vehicle, e.g., an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per RFO FAR 16.5, contract performance only occurs after issuance of a delivery/task order. Given this, submit at least one (1) individual order and associated order number under the ordering contract in addition to the underlying ordering contract and contract number. Each submitted order shall be considered a separate effort unless the Offeror provides information indicating follow-on or series of orders for continued performance of the same scope and such can be verified by the user/customer. In this event, such submitted multiple orders shall be considered as a single effort for evaluation purposes. | |||
| L.7.5 | Offerors shall use the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) template provided at Section L Exhibits, L-4, Past Performance Questionnaire and shall send the PPQ to the customer (Government or non-Government). The offeror shall ensure the customer submits the completed PPQs directly to the CO and Contract Specialist by the proposal due date (this does not count against the maximum page count. If a PPQ cannot be submitted, the offeror should describe why it is not being submitted in the one (1) page of additional information. | |||
| L.7.6 | The PPQ shall be completed by the most cognizant officer of the contract/program, or if it is a Government contract, by the CO or COR if available. The offeror shall not submit PPQs completed by their own subsidiaries, subcontractors, other team members, parents, or affiliates. | |||
| L.7.6.1 | Offerors understand that a failure to remit a PPQ, or PPQ’s with insufficient or incomplete information may result in the inability to assess quality of performance under that past performance reference and may be considered immaterial to an overall confidence assessment. In such cases the reference will also not be considered or evaluated for recency or relevancy. It is the offeror’s responsibility to have the questionnaire completed and signed by the referenced client, and the Government is not obligated to seek PPQ’s that have not been submitted. | |||
| L.7.6.1.1 | The Offeror is solely responsible for adding adequate specifics to the PPQ (Section 1), so the Government can easily identify to which offeror the past performance refers and the specific contract referenced | |||
| L.7.6.1.2 | For each PPQ, the offeror shall provide additional information not provided in the PPQ when the offeror feels additional information is necessary. The additional information shall be provided for each reference not to exceed one (1) page this summary does not count against the maximum page count). Do not duplicate information provided in the PPQ. | |||
| L.7.7 | For each past performance reference, the offeror shall submit the most recent Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) report, when available. | |||
| L.7.8 | Terminated Contracts. If the offeror or any of its major subcontractors has had any contract terminated for default or cause within the last three (3) years preceding the date in Block 6 of the SF 1449, the offeror shall provide documentation detailing the reason for the termination. The documentation shall identify the client, its address, the cognizant contracting official, and his/her telephone number and e-mail address. This is limited to two (2) pages per event and does not count against the past performance page limitation. Include this documentation as an attachment to the Past Performance Narrative. | |||
| L.7.9 | Any System for Award Management (SAM) exclusion (RFO FAR 9.404), including name of the agency or other authority taking the action; cause for the action or other statutory or regulatory authority; effect of the action; and termination date for each listing shall be included with any terminated contract narrative. If L.7.8 does not apply to an exclusion, then include a narrative in the past performance proposal volume. This is limited to two (2) pages per event and does not count against the past performance page limitation. | |||
| L.7.10 | The Government may obtain past performance data from any source, including, but not limited to, the references listed in the proposal, other customers known to the Government, consumer protection organizations, business news sources, and people inside or outside the Government who may have useful and relevant information. | |||
| L.7.11 | Client Authorization/Subcontractor Consent. A completed Client Authorization Letter (See Exhibit L-5) and Subcontractor Consent Letter (See Exhibit L-6) shall be submitted for each contract/subcontractor submitted (i.e. non-federal, non-U.S. Government contracts) and will not be counted against any page limits. If the proposed subcontractor or teaming partner’s consent is not provided with the offeror's proposal, the Government will not consider the subcontractor’s past performance in assessing the offeror's past performance. | |||
| L.7.11.1 | Subcontractor Commitment. If subcontractor experience is submitted for consideration as part of the proposal, the offeror shall include a commitment signed by offeror and subcontractor certifying that if a contract is awarded resulting from the proposal, the parties commit to joint performance as proposed. If the signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, the Government will not consider the subcontractor’s past performance in assessing the offeror's Performance Confidence. | |||
| L.7.12 | If the offeror, or its major subcontractor(s), were formed solely for the purpose of proposing on this solicitation and the parent corporation, affiliate, or the individual entity or entities of a joint venture has relevant past performance, or if for any other reason the offeror believes that these entities have relevant past performance the offeror shall submit information required for the applicable entity/entities. If the offeror submits such past performance, the entity must have meaningful involvement in the TMEP2 contract. The offeror shall document how the applicable entity’s past performance is relevant to this solicitation and shall document the scope and extent to which the entity will be involved, or its resources will be utilized, in the daily operations of the offeror in its performance of the requirements described in the solicitation. This information shall be included in the 20-page description. | |||
| L.7.13 | Organizational Roadmap. Offerors must submit a proposed organizational chart and "roadmap" with their proposal including the point of contact's address, telephone number, and email. This roadmap must clearly disclose the organizational relationships of the prime contractor, parent entity, affiliates, subsidiaries, teaming partners, joint ventures, and all subcontractors, explicitly stating the work percentage for all entities involved in performing on this contract. If the offeror is a Joint Venture, and submits past performance information of the individual joint venture entities, it must disclose what aspects of the TMEP2 effort each individual entity will perform To facilitate the Government's relevancy determination, the roadmap must also describe any acquisitions, mergers, or reorganizations; if past performance is cited from a predecessor company, the offeror must explicitly demonstrate how those efforts are relevant to this solicitation and how that work directly attributes to the current offering entity. | |||
| Price | ||||
| L.8.1 | Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs. The offeror shall submit fixed unit prices and extended amounts based on the Government-provided estimated quantities in Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs in United States (US) Dollars. For all CLINs, the unit price to two (2) decimal places (0.00) multiplied by the estimated quantity for each respective CLIN shall equal the extended amount on the SF 1449, Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs, with no rounding. A zero dollar figure (i.e., $0.00) entered or a line item left blank will be interpreted as the CLIN shall be provided at no charge to the Government. The offeror’s completed Section B of the solicitation constitutes its offer to the Government. | M.8.1 | Total Evaluated Price. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is the sum of all priced CLINs in Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs, for the Base Period and each of the seven (7) Option Periods (not including the Transition-Out CLINs), the RFO FAR 52.217-8 six-month extension, plus the single |
highest priced Transition-Out CLIN. This calculation recognizes the potential use of RFO FAR 52.217-8 --Option to Extend Services and that Transition-Out will only be purchased once.
| L.8.1.1 | The estimated quantities are based on historical data and do not constitute the Government’s commitment that these quantities will actually occur over the course of the contract. | ||||
| L.8.1.2 | In the event there is a discrepancy between Volume IV, Price Proposal and the SF 1449, Section B, the amounts on the SF 1449, Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs, shall prevail. | ||||
| L.8.1.3 | For all CLINs, if there is a discrepancy between the unit price and the extended amount, the unit price will be presumed to be correct. The unit prices (to two (2) decimal places) multiplied by the estimated quantity for each respective CLIN shall equal the extended amount in Schedule B, with no rounding. | ||||
| L.8.1.4 | The Price Proposal shall clearly state the offeror’s proposed total price/total evaluated price (see section M.8.1.) It also shall include the price totals by CLINs and option period. | ||||
| L.8.2 | In accordance with Section F, Paragraph F.5 “Tiered Pricing”, offerors shall also propose fixed unit prices for the low and high tiers, in addition to the expected (estimated quantity) tier. Offerors shall use the Pricing Template (Attachment L-7) to submit its proposed prices for the claims processing CLINs, X001, X002, X003, and X004. | M.8.2 | Quantity Tiers. The Government will evaluate each unit price for the low and high quantity tiers, as indicated in Section F, Paragraph F.5, for reasonableness. The low and high quantity tier unit prices submitted in Exhibit L-7 Pricing Template will not be considered in the overall TEP. | ||
| L.8.3 | Adequate price competition is anticipated for this commercial effort, therefore offerors shall not provide certified cost and pricing data or information other than certified cost or pricing data. The CO reserves the right to subsequently require additional data, including data other than certified cost or pricing data. | M.8.3 | Reasonableness. The Government anticipates adequate price competition and will evaluate the offeror’s total evaluated price for reasonableness. The Government will not evaluate for cost realism. | ||
| M.8.3.A | Unbalanced Pricing. In accordance with RFO FAR 15.404-6, the Government will evaluate each offeror’s TEP for unbalanced pricing. | ||||
| M.8.3.B | Evaluation of Options. In accordance with RFO FAR 52.212-2(b) -- Options and RFO FAR 52.217-8 -- Option to Extend Services, the price evaluation is inclusive of the evaluation of options required for any extension of services resulting from the Government’s unilateral right to exercise RFO FAR 52.217-8. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services at the end of any performance period (base or option periods), utilizing the rates of that performance period.[ | ||||
| L.8.4 | Transition-In. Offerors shall propose a fixed price for the 12-month Transition-In base period CLIN, including all costs anticipated during the 12-month Transition-In period to accomplish the Transition-In requirements detailed in the solicitation. | ||||
| L.8.5 | Claims Processing. Offerors shall propose separate fixed-price claims processing rates for electronic and paper claims for each option period. These rates consist of the costs associated with claims processing, including adjudication, TED creation/submission requirements, and payment. Claims processing rates shall not include costs for customer service, appeals, marketing, advertising, management, or overhead not associated with processing the claim. Offerors shall use the Government-provided estimated claims volume for each option period in Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs. | ||||
| L.8.6 | Offerors shall propose separate fixed price monthly administration rates for each option period. The prices for the Administration CLINs include costs for customer service, appeals, marketing, advertising, management, and overhead not associated with claims processing. Administration rates shall not include costs associated with claims processing. | ||||
| L.8.7 | Transition-Out. Offerors shall propose a fixed price for each option period for the Transition-Out CLINs. These prices will include all costs associated with transitioning out the prospective contract in accordance with the contract requirements. | ||||
| L.8.8 | The CO may request assistance from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and/or Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). The offeror shall include the DCMA and DCAA POCs (office names, office addresses, name of cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) and DCAA supervisory auditor/auditor, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers) for the offeror and any major subcontractors in the proposal. If the Offeror is a nontraditional defense contractor, or otherwise cannot provide these POCs as outlined above, provide the offeror’s equivalent. | ||||
| L.8.9 | Service Contract Act (SCA).The SCA applies to this solicitation. Each offeror shall provide Wage Determination(s) for proposed place(s) of performance. Wage determinations are available on the System for Award Management website at sam.gov. All performance under this contract shall be within the United States. The CO will incorporate the most current version(s) of the applicable Wage Determination(s) as an attachment to the contract and will incorporate any revisions annually thereafter with the exercise of any option period. | ||||
| L.8.9.1 | Offerors shall identify SCA labor categories and labor rates within the price proposal and warrant on the first page of its Volume IV, Price Proposal, that the prices proposed do not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under RFO FAR Clause 52.222-43 -- Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act -- Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts.) | ||||
| Smal Business |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .