RFP_Atch5--Evaluation.pdf

Page 1of 4

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items

Note to Offerors: This RFP requests that Offerors provide technical capability and key highlights from past performance efforts. Only three (3) past performance records will be evaluated for relevancy regardless of how many are submitted. The performance records shall be similar in scope and complexity as required by AFMSA/SG3PH. Please follow instructions and guidance below.

The overall evaluation methodology will be Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT). The Government will select the technically acceptable proposal found to be most advantageous to the Government price and other factors considered. The evaluation criteria are divided into three factors: Technical Capability, Past Performance and Cost/Price. Technical Capability will be assessed as acceptable or unacceptable based on demonstrated technical expertise and the offeror’s staffing plan to meeting the requirements of the PWS. Past Performance will be evaluated as significantly more important than price.

All requirements specified in the RFP’s Performance Work Statement (PWS) are mandatory. By proposal submission, the Offeror is representing that the Offeror can and will perform all requirements specified in the RFP’s PWS. Do not merely reiterate the requirements in the RFP’s PWS but instead discuss HOW you will perform the requirements. Proposal may not exceed 25 pages.

The Proposal shall:

Clearly demonstrate details related to exactly how the Offeror will accomplish the tasks identified in PWS paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, 2.1.1a, 2.1.1b, 2.1.1c, 2.1.1d, and 2.3 Deliverables Table.

Address Contractor’s understanding of the skills, education, expertise, necessary level of experience and certification required for personnel.

Address contractor’s skill and experience in providing program management, advisory and assistance support and services to develop and implement a Health Coaching Demonstration (HCD) project to integrate into the patient workflow and leverage the standup of the Department of Defense (DoD) electronic health record (EHR).

Clearly demonstrate how the Offeror will manage the project, schedule Health Coaching Demonstrations and interface with Air Force personnel.

Clearly identify that the personnel proposed for this contract effort possess appropriate experience, skills or education for the tasks described in the PWS.

Address Contractor’s skill and ability to provide expertise to serve as the focal point to execute the staffing, training, equipment, budget, information technology, workspace, communication, monitoring, quality control, evaluation, and reporting and associated activities for the HCD project. Provide a staffing plan and strategy to ensure positions are filled no later than 10 business days after contract award with the Offeror’s proposal.

Include qualifications for each labor category. Address staffing plan and strategy to ensure positions are filled no later than 10 business days after contract award.

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Sub-Factor 1 – Technical Capability: Technical Capability of the offeror’s proposals will be assessed and given a rating that reflects the degree to which the proposed capability meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal.

Technical Capability will be assessed based on Table 2 Technical Ratings set forth below.

Sub-Factor 2 – Staffing Plan: The proposal must clearly address offeror’s understanding of the personnel resources and skill necessary to fulfill the PWS requirements. A list of qualifications for each labor category must be submitted to demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the related experience it can find for this requirement.

Authenticate that the proposer’s health coaching program is transitionally or fully accredited by the National Consortium for Credentialing Health & Wellness Coaches (NCCHWC) or is currently transitionally approved.

Table 1. Technical Ratings

Description

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate capability and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. It is not awardable.

Page 2of 4

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Demonstrate Recent and Relevant Past Performance.

The proposal shall:

Address the Contractor’s history of successful completion of projects, history of producing high-quality reports, meeting deliverables and staying on schedule.

Address the Contractor’s specific past performance experience and its successful completion of projects and strategic planning.

Demonstrate experience in a comprehensive health coaching training program with specific experience in the development and implementation of a HCD project.

Indicate experience in delivering quality assurance, evaluation and an improvement program in monitoring health coaching sessions.

Address experience and accomplishing tasks.

Indicate ability to stay within costs, schedule and performance.

Explain ability to attract/retain qualified personnel.

Clearly demonstrates high quality performance providing health coaching services.

The Technical Evaluation Team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. The Team will review past and present performance data identified by Offerors in their proposals and may obtain additional past and present performance data, if available from other sources.

The Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance and information obtained from other sources, such as Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or similar systems and commercial sources. Offerors are reminded that both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate Offeror’s past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the Offerors. Proposals that do not contain the information requested will not be evaluated.

The Past Performance questionnaires will be reviewed for the quality of performance provided. When relevant performance record indicates adverse past performance, consideration will be given to the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation received for sources with a formal rating system.

TABLE 2. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

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

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

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

TABLE 3. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Page 3of 4

Factors and Subfactors

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

PWS

reference

Factor 1. Technical Capability: The capability the Offeror proposes to meet the Health Coaching Demonstration Initiative PWS requirements.

Sub factor 1.1 Subject Knowledge

Describe how the Offeror’s capability benefits the Government from the Offeror’s knowledge, experience, and expertise of the subject matter.

Offeror’s capability demonstrates the Offeror’s knowledge, expertise, and in depth experience of the tasks identified in PWS in 2.1 and 2.2 and how the Offeror intends to leverage this knowledge, expertise and experience to provide the best possible service to the Government.

Offeror’s capability must meet the accreditation requirements.

2.1.1 2.2.1 2 a.

Sub factor 1.2 Staffing of Personnel

Describe the Offeror’s capability to staffing this requirement with qualified candidates. The contractor shall submit a list of qualifications for each labor category that each of their candidates possess to meet the Government’s requirements for education, certifications, experience, Knowledge Skills and Abilities, and clearance.

Offeror’s process details how their personnel supporting this contract will be identified, screened, placed, and monitored, as needed, to perform the requirements on the first day of the period of performance. The process should also identify how the Offeror will ensure personnel possess the appropriate levels of education, experience, and expertise.

2.1.1.1 2.2.

2.2.1

Factor 2. Past Performance: The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant in terms of scope, complexity, and magnitude as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation.

Subfactor 2.1 Scope Relevancy

Highlight requirements from past performance contracts that are similar in scope to the PWS requirements.

Offeror’s highlighted past performance requirements are assessed to the degree by which the Offeror has successfully supported similar requirements (in the DoD and/or commercial environment) to those Tasks identified in the PWS.

Subfactor 2.2 Complexity Relevancy

Highlight requirements from past performance contracts that are similar in complexity to the PWS requirements.

Relevant complexity as it relates to past performance is the number of Tasks (similar to those identified in the PWS) performed at the execution/tactical level as well as the overall strategic level. Multiple tasks performed at these levels will be given greater consideration than those contracts executing fewer tasks at these levels.

Page 4of 4

Factors and Subfactors

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

PWS

reference

Subfactor 2.3 Magnitude Relevancy

Highlight requirements from past performance contracts that are similar in magnitude to the PWS requirements.

Relevant magnitude as it relates to past performance is the number of contracts that the Offeror has medical or healthcare related management support requirements.

Subfactor 2.4 Quality of Services Performed

Highlight previous past performance contracts detailing the quality of services provided.

Offeror’s highlighted past performance demonstrates the organization's history of successful completion of projects, history of producing high-quality reports and other deliverables, and staying within schedule

Options. The price of the base year and all options will be will be included in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance among all CLINs. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the CLIN or the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

The base year and each option period will allow for continued performance up to an additional 6 months, as needed, after that respective period of performance IAW FAR Clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, which is included in this solicitation and is included in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The pricing for this period (if utilized) will be the rates identified, at the time of proposal, on CLINs 3001, 3002, and 3003.

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision)