HAMS_II_SF_1449_Conformed_Copy.pdf

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

FA8052-17-R-0003 21-Feb-2017

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

969-9839

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

02:30 PM 21 Apr 2017

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012)

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

ADDENDA ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

23.

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TELEPHONE NO.

FA8052

9. ISSUED BY

18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a. UNLESS BLOCK

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

LASHELLE M. RABOLD

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

20.

ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

(BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN

% FOR:SET ASIDE:UNRESTRICTED OR X

SMALL BUSINESSX

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

773 ESS/PK

3515 S. GENERAL MCMULLEN, STE 200

SAN ANTONIO TX 78226-1720

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

13b. RATING

CODE15. DELIVER TO CODE F2MTAJ 16. ADMINISTERED BY

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFPX

AFMSA/SG8F-F2MTAJ

DANISHA BARTON

601 DAVY CROCKETT, BLDG 1534, STE 100

SAN ANTONIO TX 78226

TEL: 210-925-1600 FAX:

210-395-9864FAX:

TEL:

SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SIZE STANDARD:

$18,000,000

NAICS:

561720

OFFER DATED

29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF.

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

EMAIL:

TEL:

31c. DATE SIGNED

SEE SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICESITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

24.22.21.19.

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (WOSB)

ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

EDWOSB

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

PAGE 2 OF492

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f . TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINALPARTIALCOMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT

41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012) BACK

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

SEE SCHEDULE

20.

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

21.

QUANTITY UNIT

22. 23.

UNIT PRICE

24.

AMOUNT

19.

ITEM NO.

FA8052-17-R-0003

Section SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

List of Attachments

Document Pages Date Title_________________________________

Attachment 1 36 21 Mar 2017 HAMS II Performance Work Statement w/Exhibits

Exhibit A Workbook 21 Mar 2017 Individual Medical Facility Exhibit (IMFE), Located in ProPaks

Attachment 2 Workbook 21 Mar 2017 ProPak, 56 MTF* (Workbooks)

Attachment 3 Workbook 07 Feb 2017 Regional Total Evaluation Price (TEP)

Workbook

Attachment 4 1 03 Jan 2016 Regional Map

Attachment 5 51 21 Mar 2017 Workload Data by MTF

Attachment 6 314 21 Mar 2017 Collective Bargaining Agreements and Wage

Determinations

Attachment 7 7 16 Feb 2017 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

Attachment 8 11 18 Aug 2016 Past Performance Information (PII) Tool and

Instructions

Attachment 9 10 9 June 2016 Business Associate Agreement

Attachment 10 1 21 Mar 2017 Instructions for Square Feet Variances

*There are 58 sites indicated in the PWS; however, the ProPak, atch 2, addresses 56 MTF because two sets of Joint

Base sites are combined.

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

Tailored FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items Addendum to 52.212-1 -- Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this solicitation is to acquire Healthcare Aseptic Management Services (HAMS) II for United States Air Force installations within the Contiguous United States, to include Alaska. HAMS II requirements are grouped into four (4) geographic regions consisting of active duty United States Air Force (USAF) installations in the Northwest, Southwest, Northeast, and Southeast (See RFP Section J, Attachment 4 - Regional Map).

This acquisition will be a 100% Small Business set-aside. The Government intends to issue one (1) solicitation resulting in the accomplishment of up to four (4) awards; one (1) for each region.

The source selection will be conducted and awarded using Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

This section of the Request for Proposal (RFP) provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions about the format of the proposal. The Offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested in the RFP. The Offeror shall comply with the solicitation requirements, as stated, and the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Offeror’s proposal must reflect a thorough understanding of the services required and display a logical presentation of the Offeror's capability to perform all tasks.

Only the minimum amount of information required to provide for proper evaluation is requested. The proposals shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail to provide for adequate evaluation and substantiation of the validity of stated claims. Submitted documents must contain adequate information to enable the evaluation team to fully ascertain the Offeror’s capability to perform contract requirements, must meet the requirements of the RFP, and must address the evaluation factors for award. The Government will not make other than reasonable efforts to ascertain the meaning of a proposal submission, given that Offeror must follow these instructions for how to arrange and submit a proposal. Inadequate, incomplete or disorganized proposals may be found to be technically unacceptable, and evaluation of that proposal stopped, simply because the evaluators could not reasonably ascertain whether the proposal meets the technical evaluation factors of this solicitation.

All information contained in the proposal that an Offeror feels is proprietary should be labeled “Source Selection Information—See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

Unless otherwise stated, the term “Offeror” includes the prime contractor/joint venture, and subcontractors/teaming, as defined under the Contractor Team Arrangements section of this Addendum. The Government will lock Offerors into a single region, and may only participate in one region.

The Offeror must submit a signed certification as the first page after the cover page of the technical proposal, with the following completed and signed by an officer of the company with the authority to bind the company or with the authority to submit the proposal on behalf of the company:

This submission by [COMPANY NAME] is for the region of __________________________________.

[COMPANY NAME] has not / has submitted another proposal for another region [add second, third, and/or fourth Region Here]. [COMPANY NAME] acknowledges that its submission in a specific region will be evaluated for award by competition of those Offerors who submitted in the same region.

[COMPANY NAME] acknowledges that, if it chooses to do so, it may protest only in the region(s) it has submitted a proposal and that protest of any Government action in one region shall not be applicable to nor affect award in any other region.

Offeror shall acknowledge awareness of all amendments to the solicitation by signing and dating Page 1 of each Standard Form 30, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract, and including it in Volume III, Pricing, of the proposal.

In accordance with FAR 9.104(a), offerors shall submit documentation with their proposal indicating that the Offeror, including the Contractor Teaming Arrangement, has adequate financial resources or the ability to obtain such resources to perform the requirement. At a minimum, each offeror shall submit documentation to show the ability to support not less than $2.5M, irrespective of the number of regions proposed (offerors submitting on more than one region may submit a document indicating the amount equal to a single proposed region). The documentation information shall be included in Volume III, Price.

Period for acceptance of offers. The Offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 380 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of Volume III, Price.

FORMAL COMMUNICATIONS

Any formal communication such as requests for clarification and requests for information concerning this solicitation must be submitted in writing not later than 1 March 2017, 2:30PM Central Time via e-mail to the addresses listed below:

AFICA 773 ESS/PK

Reference: Solicitation No. FA8052-17-R-0003, HAMS II E-Mail: 773ESS.PKA.HAMSII@us.af.mil

Question and Answers, as well as the issuance and receipt of Evaluation Notices (ENs) shall be conducted electronically.

The e-mail Subject line shall state the following:

[Subject] FA8052-17-R-0003, ATTN: Ms. LaShelle Rabold, AFICA 773 ESS/PKA

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Proposal Delivery Instructions The Past Performance Information volume of the proposal shall be received no later than 6 April 2017, 2:30 PM Central Time. The Technical and Price volumes of the proposal shall be received no later than 21 April 2017, 2:30 PM Central Time. All proposals shall be mailed to the following address:

For UPS/FEDEX/DHL

772 ESS/PK (ATTN: LaShelle Rabold) 3515 S. General McMullen, Room 3026 San Antonio, TX 78226-2018

Or

For United States Postal Services mailto:773ESS.PKA.HAMSII@us.af.mil

773 ESS (ATTN: LaShelle Rabold) 2261 Hughes Ave, Ste 162 Lackland AFB, TX 78236-9856

Your package must identify the Solicitation Number and the name and address of the Offeror. All proposals must be in English.

It is the responsibility of each Offeror to ensure that proposals reach the designated mailing address above, on, or before the RFP due date/time established. 773 ESS/PK is not responsible for lost proposals and proposals delivered to locations other than the location outlined in paragraph above. Because of the anticipated size of proposals and number of submissions, electronic proposal submission will not be permitted.

Offerors are advised to strictly comply with all instructions within this solicitation to ensure their submission of complete proposals. Failure to furnish a complete proposal at the time of proposal submission may result in the proposal being unacceptable to the Government and eliminated from consideration for award. The Government will not accept any changes to the Offeror’s original proposal after the offer due date for receipt of proposals. (See FAR 15.208; Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals, for information regarding late proposals.)

DISPOSITION OF UNSUCCESSFUL PROPOSALS

In compliance with FAR Subpart 4.8, Government Contract Files, the Government will retain one (1) copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Additional copies of unsuccessful proposals will be destroyed.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

The following instructions prescribe the format for proposals, and describe the approach to be used for the development and presentation of the proposal data. The proposal shall include all of the information requested in the specific instructions. Failure to include all information requested may adversely affect the evaluation and may result in a determination that the proposal is non-responsive. A proposal that merely reiterates or promises to accomplish the requirements of the PWS will be considered unacceptable. A proposal that is orderly and sufficiently documented will enable the Government to easily understand the proposal and perform a thorough and fair evaluation.

Contractor Team Arrangements. For the purpose of the HAMS II source selection, a “contractor team arrangement” is considered (a) two (2) or more companies forming a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (b) a potential prime contractor agrees with one (1) or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors in order to compete for one (1) of the four (4) regions intended for award. Contractors are required to clearly identify, in their proposal, the prime contractor and all joint venture, teaming and/or proposed subcontractor(s). All contractors are limited to participating under one (1) contractor team arrangement for the duration of the HAMS II contract -beginning at the time that proposals are submitted in response to the RFP.

Proposal Format. A complete proposal consists of three (3) separate volumes; Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Price. Type format shall be Microsoft Word Times New Roman Font Size 12 with normal proportional spacing with the exception of charts. Text lines shall be single-spaced. The font style and size for graphics, tables, organizational charts, drawings, and other inserts shall be Arial 10.

The background color of each page of the proposal shall be white or ivory only. Information generated from the Past Performance Information tool does not apply to these restrictions.

Copy Requirement/Page Limitation. A minimum of one (1) digital copy, on a DVD-RW, is required and must contain electronic copies of all of the proposal information for each volume. Electronic copies shall use the following programs, Microsoft Word 97 or later versions or Adobe PDF, with the exception of Volume III, Price; Section 3, Schedule of Supplies and Services (Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS)), which shall be submitted as a Microsoft Excel document. Offeror may use JPEG for charts or screen shots. Offeror shall name files using standard naming conventions, e.g., filename.doc for MS Word, filename.xls for MS Excel, filename.PDF for Portable Document Format, etc. Each volume shall be in a single searchable file. Each file may be a zip file, but use of a zip file is not mandatory. Each file shall be entitled with the proposal volume name. The files shall be named in an unambiguous manner using plain language text in order to facilitate the evaluators ease in accessing the files for evaluation. Offeror shall insert the file name in the header of each document. Copy requirements and page limitations are as follows:

Number & Type of Copies Required

VOLUME TITLE

NOTES

NO. HARD

COPIES*

NO. OF

DIGITAL

COPIES PAGE LIMITS

I Technical

One (1) volume inclusive of all regions being proposed

1 (disk)

II

Past Performance Information (PPI)

One (1) volume inclusive of all regions being proposed

15 - PPI sheets generated from PPI Tool, excluding Consent Letters, Client Letters, CPARS or equivalent performance documents

III Price

One (1) volume for each region being proposed

2 No Page Limit

Offeror shall mark one copy of each volume as “original.” In instances where a discrepancy exists between volumes, the “original” marked volume shall take precedence.

Page Limits. The page limits prescribed in the table above are maximum page limits for each Volume.

Pages submitted in excess of these limits will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation of the Proposal. If the page limit is exceeded, the pages that exceed the limit shall be removed from the volume, will not be considered as part of the proposal, and will not be read. The Government may also place page limits on responses to ENs. These page limits will be prescribed in contracting officer letters forwarding ENs to each Offeror. Cover pages, tables of contents, tab separator pages, and glossaries, shall not be counted against prescribed page limits nor evaluated. The Cross Reference Matrix and Past Performance Rebuttals are included in the page count.

Page Definition. A page shall be an 8 1/2-inch by 11-inch sheet of paper. The minimum page margin (top, bottom, left, and right) that may be used is 1/2-inch. Fold-out pages will be counted as the appropriate number of pages based on an 8 1/2-inch by 11-inch sheet of paper. The Government requires that the Offeror number each page. In the event of an ambiguity in regard to the page count, the Government may exercise discretion in determining the page count. Two (2) pages may be printed on one (1) sheet of paper; they will count as two (2) pages. All material shall be contained within the page limit identified for each volume unless otherwise specified. All appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings et cetera are included in the page count. Offeror is instructed to specifically identify and separate all pages that are not included in the page count.

EXCEPTIONS

As the Government intends to award without discussions, Offerors are advised of the possibility that their proposals may be found unacceptable if exceptions are taken to the solicitation requirements.

Clarification of Government requirements should be requested by the Offeror by submitting questions and/or recommended changes not later than 10 calendar days after issuance of the solicitation. All exceptions to the solicitation requirements (including the PWS) and supporting rationale shall be identified as such and consolidated into an overview section of subject volume. An overview section is only required if the Offeror takes exception to any requirement in the solicitation. The overview section will not be included in the page count. Exception(s) to solicitation requirements may require the Government to amend the solicitation to reflect requirement change(s). If the Offeror takes no exception to the stated requirements, a statement to this effect shall be included in the respective volume.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME I, TECHNICAL CAPABILITY, FACTOR 1

Offerors’ Technical Capability information, Volume I, shall be provided in a format that facilitates an assessment according to the technical capability evaluation criteria set forth in the Addendum to 52.212-2 of this solicitation. The volume shall include a Cross Reference Matrix with the Technical Capability factor listed below.

The matrix shall identify where the information is addressed in the technical volume that pertains to this factor.

Subfactor 1.1, Management Approach:

1. Submit a management approach that:

(a) Describes its recruitment, retention, and training strategies to ensure support of the PWS requirements, and

(b) Provide a copy of a current International Sanitary Supply Association Cleaning Industry Management Standard – Green Buildings certification.

2. Submit a regional management plan that:

(a) Identifies the percentage and locations of work/areas of responsibility for all joint venture, teaming and/or proposed subcontractor(s).

(b) Describes the regional approach to managing and overseeing all facilities and how identified performance weaknesses will be handled.

Subfactor 1.2, Transition Plan:

1. Submit a transition plan that:

(a) Describes critical events necessary to ensure services on day-1 of contract start.

(b) Identify a regional approach for implementation of services that addresses personnel, management, equipment, supply, all required deliverables and any critical path events to ensure continuity of services across.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME II, PAST PERFORMANCE, FACTOR 2

Offerors’ Past Performance information, Volume II, shall be provided in a format that facilitates an assessment according to the past performance evaluation criteria set forth in the Addendum to 52.212- 2 of this solicitation. The Government requests past performance information be provided to the extent it is available, within the past performance volume submission parameters outlined below for joint venture, and subcontractors/teaming who will be performing substantially in support of the proposed effort based upon total proposed price or performing aspects of the effort that the Offeror considers critical to successful performance.

In the evaluation of past performance, the Government may use data provided by the Offeror in Volume II or obtained from other sources. The Offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each joint venture and subcontractor/teaming arrangement authorizing release of past performance information to the Government. Consent and Client Authorization letters shall be included in the Past Performance Volume. If consent letters are not submitted then the Government will only rely on Past Performance of the Prime Contractor.

Each Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume containing the following:

1. Table of Contents (not included in page limit)

2. Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheets generated from the PPI Tool (shall not exceed 15

Total)

3. Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) or equivalent performance documents, if applicable (not included in page limit)

4. Consent Letters authorizing release of past performance information. A sample consent letter is included in this document (not included in page limit)

5. Client Letters authorizing release of requested information on the offeror’s past performance to the Government (not included in page limit).

6. A history of organizational structure change in accordance with the paragraph entitled as such.

Specific Content. Each Offeror is required to provide a Past Performance Volume. For the Past Performance Volume, no more than five (5) recent and relevant contracts may be submitted. Multiple overlapping contracts may be cumulated to meet relevancy definitions, but shall not exceed five (5).

Individual task orders count as a contract; multiple task orders under a single contract count as separate contracts.

Recent and Relevant Contracts. The Offeror is encouraged to submit Relevant past performance information for recent contracts [utilizing the PPI Tool] the Offeror considers most relevant for demonstrating the Offeror’s ability to perform the proposed HAMS II effort. The volume shall describe contract(s) deemed recent and relevant to the proposed effort and identify the related contractual elements (i.e., what parts of the past performance contracts relate to the current proposed effort). The Offeror shall include supporting rationale that states why each selected past performance contract is considered relevant to the HAMS II effort. Note: the Government is not bound to the Offeror’s relevancy assertions.

“Recent” is defined as 12-months of continuous performance occurring within 5-years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. References for which there is less than 12-months of continuous performance will not be considered; only past performance information that satisfies this recency condition will be evaluated.

“Relevant” is defined as efforts that include aseptic cleaning services similar to those stated in the PWS, magnitude in terms of square footage (approximately 250,000 square feet), and management of services across multiple geographic locations. Each Offeror will be allowed to submit up to five references.

Multiple references may be cumulated to meet the Government’s definition of relevancy; in these instances the combined references must have at least 12-months of continuous, overlapping performance. The references may include joint venture, teaming and/or proposed subcontractor(s).

The accumulation of each Offeror’s past performance efforts which meet the recency and relevancy requirement will receive one (1) of the adjectival ratings defined in Table 2, Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings. An offer rated as unacceptable for this factor will result in an overall rating of unacceptable and will not be eligible for award.

Table 2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered acceptable.

Past Performance Information Tool. Submit information on contracts you consider most recent and relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. Each reference will be submitted in the Past Performance Information Tool, identifying active or completed contracts, either Government or commercial for each Offeror. Each Past Performance Information Sheet (not to exceed five (5)) is limited to the fields of the Past Performance Information Tool and when completed shall not exceed five

(5) pages. The Government does not have a preference between Government or commercial references. The Past Performance Information Tool identifies all required information.

Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR). Completed CPARs or similar reports from equivalent performance assessment systems used to record past performance data shall be submitted when available. If a Government office has used another evaluation form to record performance assessments, the Offeror may submit that form or report instead of CPARs. If a CPAR or another evaluation form has been completed for a Contractor’s work, but the contracting office for that requirement will not release the information to the Offeror, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer for this solicitation. The Contractor should provide the contract number for the CPAR, and the name and telephone number of the POC from which the past performance information should be obtained. This information should be provided to the Contracting Officer for this solicitation as soon as the Contractor becomes aware of this circumstance and before the due date for receipt of the Past Performance Volume. If the Offeror is obtaining information for a contract with a non- Governmental organization, the information provided should be the same or similar as that required on the CPAR form. Past performance forms and reports shall be provided unaltered in their entirety.

Offeror’s Rebuttal of Adverse Past Performance Information. The Offeror is allowed to provide a rebuttal of adverse past performance information if a previous opportunity has not been provided. The Offeror shall limit this rebuttal to addressing the specific negative comments. The Offeror shall clearly distinguish between any rebuttal already provided on a form or report and those rebuttals provided specifically for the purposes of this proposal.

Organizational Structure Change History. Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or have otherwise merged with other companies or reorganized their divisions, business groups or subsidiary companies. In many cases, these changes have taken place during periods of relevant past performance or subsequent to the conclusion of recent past performance. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether past performance is relevant to the current acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include a description of such changes in company organization. A pamphlet or other commercial pre-existing document describing such reorganization may suffice. This explanation should demonstrate the relevance of any efforts identified.

Additional Past Performance Research. Past performance information for contracts not listed by the Offeror may also be evaluated. References other than those identified by the Offeror may be contacted by the Government and the information obtained during such contact used in the evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance. While the Government may attempt to obtain additional information, the burden of demonstrating relevancy rests with the Offeror by submitting initial past performance information.

Past Performance Used for Determination of Contractor Responsibility. Even though the assessment of Past Performance is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR Part

9, Contractor Qualifications, past performance information obtained during the evaluation process may be used to support the Determination of Responsibility for the successful Offeror.

Subcontractor Consent Letter. Past performance information concerning subcontractors cannot be disclosed to or requested from a private party without the subcontractor’s consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government requires consent before disclosing subcontractor past performance information to the prime contractor and/or requesting such information about the subcontractor from references. The completed consent letters should be submitted as part of Volume II, Past Performance.

Sample Consent Letter

To: Contracting Officer [Insert name of Offeror or proposed subcontractor.] is currently participating as a [prime contractor or proposed subcontractor][Circle appropriate role.] in responding to the Air Force Installation Contracting Agency (AFICA) 773 Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (ESS), JBSA-Lackland, Texas, Request for Proposal, Solicitation No. FA8052-17-R-0003 for the Air Force Healthcare Aseptic Management Services (HAMS) II within the Contiguous United States (CONUS) Requirement.

[Insert name of Offeror or proposed subcontractor.] understands that the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance in source selections in order to obtain best value defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) as “the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.” In order to facilitate the performance confidence assessment process, [Insert name of Offeror or proposed subcontractor.] is signing this consent form in order to allow you to discuss our present and past performance information with the Government during the source selection process.

Signature and title of individual who has authority to sign for and legally bind the company:

Date:

Company Name:

Address:

Cage Code:

Telephone Number and FAX Number:

Client Authorization Letter. Past performance information concerning private sector contractors, subcontractors and joint venture partners cannot be disclosed to the Government without their consent. Client authorization letters are required for each identified effort for a commercial customer.

This letter will authorize release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror's performance. The Government will need that consent before contacting commercial customers to assess the Offeror’s past performance. The completed client authorization letters should be submitted as part of Volume I, Past Performance.

Sample Client Letter

To: Contracting Officer

We are responding to a Air Force Installation Contracting Agency (AFICA) 773 Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (ESS), JBSA-Lackland, Texas , Request for Proposal FA8052-17-R-0003 for the Healthcare Aseptic Management Services (HAMS) II contract.

In their acquisitions, the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance as a source selection factor. They are requiring those clients of entities responding to their solicitation to be identified, and their participation in the evaluation process is requested. In the event that you are contacted for information on work performed, you are hereby authorized to respond to those inquiries.

We have identified Mr./Ms.____________________________ of your organization as the point of contact based on his/her knowledge of our work. Your cooperation is appreciated. Any questions may be directed to .

Signature and title of individual who has authority to sign for and legally bind the company:

Date:

Company Name:

Address:

Cage Code:

Telephone Number and FAX Number:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME III, PRICE FACTOR 3

The Offeror’s response to the Pricing, Volume III, shall include completing the following blocks of the Standard Form (SF) 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items: 12, Discount Terms; 17, Contractor/Offeror; 20, Schedule of Supplies/Services (indicate the region in which the SF 1449 applies) 23, Unit Price (State “See Schedule B”; 24, Amount (State “See Schedule B); 26, Total Amount; and 30, Signature of Offeror/Contractor, Name and Title of Signer, and Date Signed. An official having the authority to bind your company contractually must sign the SF 1449 in accordance with FAR 4.102, Contractor’s signature. A signed SF 1449 shall be included for each region proposed. The Offeror shall acknowledge any amendments to the solicitation in accordance with the instructions on the SF 1449 and FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items.

Each Offeror shall include pricing for the CLINs listed in the Schedule of Supplies/Services of the solicitation. This section shall include all unit prices (if applicable) and total extended amounts for the CLINs. Offerors shall obtain the value of the Extension of Services CLINs, 6001-6004, by taking the MTF, 6-month pricing from each MTF, totaling all MTFs for that region, and then input it into the SF1449.

Offeror shall not propose against the Item Number denoted as “Wage Adjustments” as these will be used to fund Service Contract Act (SCA) and Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) driven wage adjustments. Offeror shall complete the Pricing Model Spreadsheet (a.k.a. ProPaks), Attachment 2 and the Regional Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Worksheet, Attachment 3 to the solicitation. Offeror shall ensure that the total amount in Block 26 on the SF1449 and Regional TEP Worksheet, in Attachment 3, agree.

The ProPaks are where each Offeror shall input all pricing data. The “Inputs Tab” of the ProPak provides instructions for completing the spreadsheet and is the only tab the Offeror shall input pricing data. The Offeror shall propose on HAMS II Services (price per square foot), transition period, and cycle tasks at each MTF within a region. Offeror shall enter all data in the ProPak for all fields identified on the inputs page. The Total MTF Price for the MTF will be the combined HAMS II Services, transition period, and cycle tasks, as well as the pricing associated with 52.217-8, Extension of Services. As a result of the pricing data entered on the “Inputs Tab” the Schedule B Tab will auto calculate the annual price and MTF Price Tab will auto calculate the total price for each MTF. The Individual Medical Facility Exhibit (IMFE) Tab and Room Inventory Tab are for square footage and informational purposes only.

Once each Offeror has completed entering all pricing data into the ProPak, they shall input the Total MTF Price for each MTF into the TEP on the Regional TEP Worksheet. If there is a typographical or mathematical error in transcribing totals from the ProPak to the Regional TEP Worksheet, the ProPak Total MTF Price shall take precedence. If there is a typographical or mathematical error in transcribing totals from the Regional TEP Worksheet to the SF 1449, the SF 1449 shall take precedence.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed pricing for completeness, balance, and reasonableness. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness, however, a price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of each offeror’s TEP to satisfy FAR 15.305(a)(1); however, Other than Certified Cost and Pricing Data may be requested if determined necessary. The Government will use the price of MTF HAMS II Services, transition period, and cycle tasks to formulate a TEP for each Offeror for each region. The TEP will be the only discriminator among each Offeror for the price factor.

DEBRIEFING OF OFFERORS

Debriefings are conducted with the goal of identifying to unsuccessful Offerors where changes can be made to improve future source selection participation. Successful or unsuccessful Offerors may request debriefings by providing a written request to the Procuring Contracting Officer. Debriefings shall be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.505, Preaward debriefing of Offerors, and FAR 15.506, Postaward debriefing of Offerors.

(End of Addendum)

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(Contracting Officer shall insert the significant evaluation factors, such as (i) technical capability of the item offered to meet the Government requirement; (ii) price; (iii) past performance (see FAR 15.304); and include them in the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors, such as in descending order of importance.)

Technical and past performance, when combined, are . (Contracting Officer state, in accordance with FAR 15.304, the relative importance of all other evaluation factors, when combined, when compared to price.)

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) 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)

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

Tailored FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation -- Commercial Items

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award contract(s) resulting from this solicitation to the responsible

Offeror(s) whose offer, conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the

Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(i) Factor I, Technical Capability

(ii) Factor II, Past Performance

(iii) Factor III, Price

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror(s) 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, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Addendum to 52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items.

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures. Evaluation will be in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2, as supplemented by the Defense FAR

Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, 1 April 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures MP5315.3, Source Selection. Technical or past performance tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding minimum acceptability. Contract award will be made to the Offeror(s) deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1 and whose proposals conform to the solicitation requirements. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Offeror proposals are evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria. The Government intends to award up to four (4) contracts, one (1) contract per region; Offerors will only be eligible to receive one (1) award. All Offerors must be technically acceptable and have an acceptable past performance rating to be eligible for award consideration. Any subfactor that is rated unacceptable will result in the overall factor being determined unacceptable.

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated using Acceptable/Unacceptable rating method.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The Government will review all technical, past performance, and price proposals for RFP compliance.

Step 1: Technical Capability, Past Performance evaluations, and Price analysis will be conducted simultaneously.

Technical Capability and Past Performance will be assessed as acceptable/unacceptable, and assigned to each offer, respectively. Past Performance will be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality; all references deemed not recent will not be further evaluated. Price analysis will be conducted IAW FAR 15.404 and will be evaluated for completeness, balance, and reasonableness; award may only be made to offers determined fair and reasonable.

Step 2: All acceptable offers in terms of technical and past performance, with complete and balanced pricing, will then be ranked by the TEP in each of the four regions. If any proposal is considered incomplete or unbalanced in price, that Offeror’s proposal may be ineligible for award.

Step 3: The Government intends to select awardees for each region in the following order: (1) Northwest Region,

(2) Southwest Region, (3) Northeast Region, and (4) Southeast Region, as outlined in Attachment 4 of the RFP, Regional Map. The Government will award one contract per region to meet the HAMS II requirement. Each region will be an evaluation comparing only those Offerors submitted in that region. For this reason, protests of any award decision in one region will not affect any other award decision in another region. Consistent with FAR 6.202, once an Offeror has been determined the apparent awardee for one region they will no longer be eligible for other regional awards. However, the Government reserves the right to award in a different order if it is determined to be in its best interests.

The Government intends to award without discussion; however, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the

Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine which proposals are in the competitive range. All proposals that are initially determined non-responsive or that are initially rated unacceptable on any factor or subfactor, technical or past performance that contain incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced pricing may be deemed unawardable if the award is made without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the

Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical perspective. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to ENs and the Final Proposal Revision

(FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Offers conditioned on award of less than the full quantity of all MTFs in a region will be rejected and not further evaluated.

EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of Offeror’s Technical Capability proposal to determine if it meets the Government’s requirements. Offeror shall meet all requirements in order to receive an acceptable rating and to be considered responsive to the solicitation.

The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. Proposals should display a clear understanding including a reasonable, well-thought-out approach that demonstrates the Offeror's comprehension of all tasks to be performed to meet the requirements of the

PWS.

The proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability/unacceptability against the following factors:

Subfactor 1.1 - Management Approach, this Subfactor is met when:

1. The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

(a) A recruitment and retention plan, with specific emphasis on selection and continuity of key personnel and regional project management support.

(b) A comprehensive training program ensuring all required training is addressed, and the manner in which it will be documented and maintained while adhering to the requirements of the PWS.

(c) Clearly indicates that the prime contractor/joint venture, and subcontractors/teaming, has a current/active

ISSA CIMS-GB certification.

2. The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

(a) Clearly identifies intended utilization of all Offerors as defined in the Contractor Team Arrangement, their areas of responsibility for the regional approach being proposed, and the estimated percentage of work anticipated to be accomplished by each member, and

(b) Provides a holistic approach to regional management clearly addressing the following areas, at a minimum:

i. A structured approach to regional oversight to include an organizational chart depicting management positions, key personnel, and the responsibilities they will be charged with to ensure services are effectively managed at a combination of hospitals and/or ambulatory surgical centers and clinics.

ii. A clear and measurable approach to performance management that will enable weaknesses and deficiencies to be handled quickly, efficiently and effectively.

Subfactor 1.2 - Transition Plan, this Subfactor is met when:

1. The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

(a) A structured approach to regional transition to include personnel, management, equipment, supply, and all required deliverables to ensure continuity of services, clearly addressing the following areas, at a minimum:

i. A thorough understanding of the ramp-up events, employee transition, necessary security clearances, certifications and medical safety requirements.

ii. A comprehensive approach to procure/obtain the necessary equipment and supplies to ensure acceptable levels of services on day-1 of contract start, with no disruption to services.

Technical Factor Ratings. The Offeror’s proposal will receive one (1) of the adjectival ratings defined in Table 1, Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings. The factor rating will be used to determine an overall rating. An offer rated as technically unacceptable for this factor will result in an overall rating of unacceptable and will not be eligible for award.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government evaluation team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. The team will confirm past performance data identified by the Offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past performance data, as necessary, if available, from other sources.

Evaluation Process. The past performance assessment will be based upon the recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. This assessment represents an evaluation of an Offeror(s), as defined in the Contractor Team

Agreement, past work record so that the Government can make a determination about the reasonable expectation of the Offeror's ability of successfully performing. The past performance evaluation conducted does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.

“Recency” is defined as 12-months of continuous performance occurring within 5-years from the date of issuance of the solicitation. References for which there is less than 12-months of continuous performance will not be considered; only past performance information that satisfies this recency condition will be evaluated.

“Relevancy” for this acquisition is defined as efforts that include aseptic…