RFP_Instructions_Evaluation_-_DMS.pdf

Document Management System – Addendum RFP # FA8052-18-R-0021

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS HEREIN WILL RESULT IN AN OFFERERS’

PROPOSAL BEING INELIGIBLE FOR EVALUATION.

1. General Instructions.

These instructions are not to restrict the Contractor in the manner in which they will perform their work but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in the format of the responses for evaluation purposes. Only the minimum amount of information required to provide for proper evaluation is requested (see Limitations paragraph).

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail to provide for adequate evaluation and to substantiate the validity of document content. Submitted documents must contain adequate information to enable the evaluation team to fully ascertain offerors compliance with the requirements of this addendum and acceptability per the stated evaluation criteria.

The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offeror’s shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal. The Offeror’s proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable; possesses sufficient technical expertise and experience; possesses sufficient resources;

and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion such that technical requirements will be achieved.

A written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal furnished to the offeror shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept the proposal (or part of the proposal), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award. The offeror shall make a clear statement that the proposal is valid up to 90 days after successful submission.

To ensure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all requirements of the solicitation [Contract Line Items (CLINs) and Performance Work Statement (PWS)] including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements; Government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS; and Evaluation factors for award. Each offeror must submit the following three (3) separate volumes as further described below in the Proposal Submission, Format, & Volume Content Requirements sections:

Volume I - Technical Capability Volume II - Past Performance Volume III – Pricing.

PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS:

ALTERNATE PROPOSALS: Alternate proposals will not be accepted.

INCURRED EXPENSES: The Government is not responsible for any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation. NO OFFEROR WILL BE

COMPENSATED FOR SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL.

(a) Volume I -Technical Capability: The Technical Factors will receive an adjectival rating of Technically Acceptable/Unacceptable. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. An offer rated as technically unacceptable in any sub-factor will result in an overall rating of unacceptable and will not be eligible for award. See the Evaluation section of this document for additional guidance. This volume shall be no more than 20 pages total excluding the exceptions. Additionally, documentation must not exceed three (3) pages per each technical approach proposed. See Limitations section for additional limitations.

Volume II - Past Performance (See Attachment 5):

The Past Performance evaluation factor will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant past performance. Submittals shall include documentation supporting recency and relevancy to include the documents required for this volume as listed and explained in subparagraphs (a) – (c) below. See the Evaluation section of this document for additional guidance.

(b) Contracts Reference Sheet (See Attachment 5-1): The Offeror shall provide documentation outlining no more than three (3) of the Offeror’s past performance with contracts, as prime, subcontractor, teaming partner, and /or joint venture partner, which is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services being procured under this solicitation. The submittal shall include rationale supporting the Offeror’s assertion of relevance. Offeror’s are required to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. No more than one page per reference. Each reference sheet must include all contact information requested. Do not use any client more than once. Submit with proposal.

(c) Client Authorization Letter Sample (See Attachment 5-2): Required for each identified effort for a customer authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offeror’s performance. Contractor must send to clients to ensure their awareness of these inquiries of past performance.

(d) Past Performance Questionnaire (See Attachment 5-3): Complete Past Performance Questionnaire showing one example where the offeror recently performed a relevant effort satisfactorily. Additional information on recency and relevance is included in Evaluation section of this document. See Limitations section for additional limitations. Submit with proposal.

Volume III - Pricing Worksheet (See Attachment 4). May use Microsoft Office Excel spreadsheet with headings and required information presented in Pricing Worksheet (Attachment 4). Must list proposed pricing for each contract line item number (CLIN) in each period of performance (PoP) to include base, option, and extension periods). Pricing should include unit pricing and total per line item as well as the overall total evaluated price. Insert the proposed prices for base (12 months) and all four (4) 12-month option periods listed in the pricing worksheet attachment. Ensure the total extended pricing for each Contract Line Item (CLIN) is calculated correctly. Formulas used in pricing worksheet must be calculated correctly and explained. Provide any supporting documentation in the form of copies of published price lists, catalog cut-sheets, and like items as deemed necessary. All pricing will be evaluated for price fair and reasonableness IAW FAR Part 15.404-1. See the Evaluation section of this document for Evaluation guidance.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Due Date: Proposals are due no later than 15 August 2018, 3:00 PM (CST) Local San Antonio, TX time.

Acknowledging intent to submit proposal no later than 31 July 2018. Questions to the RFP are due no later than 1 August 2018, 3:00 PM (CST) Local San Antonio, TX time. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to verify questions and proposals were successfully sent and received by this office in accordance with due dates.

Electronic Submission: Required documents should be submitted via electronic means ONLY. Proposals must be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office suite of applications. Software use shall be word processing, spreadsheet or .PDF that is compatible with the latest Microsoft Office Suite software or Adobe Portable Document Format. Do not send as an executable or “.exe” file. Email size shall not exceed five (5) megabytes. If required, documents may be compressed (zipped) using WinZip 8.1 or later version.

Any corrupted file or media containing a virus could result in the offer not being considered for award.

Email Content: Subject line of email must contain Solicitation Number (FA8052-18-R-0021), Requirement Title and Company Name. Email must contain name, address, and a contact number for the Offeror. Email must also contain duty title of a company representative with authority to respond to proposal and can be contacted by this office as required. All attachments must clearly identify the document in the file name.

Classification: All information submitted in the proposal shall be unclassified.

Point of Contact: Send proposals directly to organizational box at 773ess.pk.proposal@us.af.mil, with a courtesy copy to the Contract Specialist (CS), Juan Huerta at juan.huerta.2@us.af.mil, and the Contracting Officer (CO) at christal.jackson.6@us.af.mil. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the point of contact for the solicitation in writing with supporting rationale.

PROPOSAL FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

Table of Contents: Each volume should include its own table of contents. Table of Content pages do not count against page limitation.

Font Requirements: Printing shall be easily readable with a minimum font size for the proposal pages at 11 pitch utilizing Times New Roman themed font or similar legible font. The minimum font size for graphics, charts, and figures is 10 pitch. All text shall be single spaced and printed black on white paper (black and white requirement does not apply to graphics, photos, etc. - company stationary and logos are acceptable).

Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are not desired or required. Tables may use font size 10.

Cross Referencing: Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other parts of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Each response to each sub-factor shall be self-contained. No cross-referencing between sub-factor responses is permitted.

Glossary: Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with a definition for each. The glossary does not count against page limitation.

mailto:773ess.pk.proposal@us.af.mil mailto:juan.huerta.2@us.af.mil mailto:christal.jackson.6@us.af.mil

Cover Sheets: Each volume of the proposal shall contain a coversheet clearly marking each volume as listed below. Cover sheets do not count against page limitation.

• Volume Number

• Date

• Title

• Copy Number

• Solicitation Identification

• Offeror’s Name, Address, CAGE Code, & DUNS number

• Basic IDIQ/GSA contract number (if applicable)

• Small Business Status/Categories as appropriate

• Company point of contact with email, phone and facsimile number

• CAGE Code, DUNS number, and Tax ID Number

• A statement that your company understands the requirements specified in the Performance Work

Statement (PWS) and will meet the performance standards and requirements therein

Page Requirements:

Size. Electronic copies of proposals shall have 8 ½ x 11 measurements, except for fold-outs used for charts, tables or diagrams, which may not exceed 11 x14.

Format. Margins shall be at least 1 inch on the top and bottom and 3/4 inch on the side. The Offeror shall number each page in order to eliminate any confusion. In the event the Offeror creates an ambiguity in their numbering of pages, the Government may exercise its own discretion in counting pages.

Limitations. A page is equal to one single-side. Pages exceeding the page limitations set forth in this provision will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Page limit includes: all attachments, appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, and drawings. The total page limit does not include the following exceptions: covers sheets for volumes, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Pages will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted.

Additional Copies: Each volume submitted must contain two electronic copies each. The second copy must be redacted to exclude any distinguishing logos, verbiage, or other markings which would make any references to the company’s identity.

FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS HEREIN WILL RESULT IN AN OFFERERS’

PROPOSAL BEING INELIGIBLE FOR EVALUATION.

(End of Addendum)

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS HEREIN MAY RESULT IN AN OFFER BEING

INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MAKE

AWARD BASED ON THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED WITH OR WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS.

EVALUATION FACTORS

A. Basis for Contract Award

The Government anticipates award of a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract resulting from this solicitation using overall evaluation methodology of a Performance Price Tradeoff source selection process. Three factors will be evaluated: Technical Capability, Past Performance and Cost/Price. The Past Performance factors are more important than technical approach factors and price; Technical Approach factors are more important than price. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance and completeness. Technical Capability will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. Past performance will be evaluated to determine a confidence rating based on recent and relevant past performance experience as it applies to this requirement. Offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to the past performance information on those contracts deemed most relevant and recent to the effort described in this solicitation. The Government will make award based on this evaluation criteria to the responsible offeror submitting the proposal found to be most advantageous to the Government.

Proposals will be reviewed and critiqued according to their ability to meet the tasks set forth in the Statement of Work (SOW). To be determined complete, the offeror must follow all instructions and submit all items required by these instructions. By submission of its offer, the Offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to the identified evaluation factors and sub-factors.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the technically acceptable proposals.

B. Evaluation Criteria: The following guidance provides specific details on how each factor will be evaluated.

2. The proposals will be evaluated based on the following three (3) evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

Technically Capability (Factor 1): The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical;

solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The ratings listed in Table 1 will be used for this evaluation.

Table 1. Technical Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable

The proposal meets all the requirements identified in the solicitation.

Only those proposals determined acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Once deemed acceptable, all proposals are considered equal.

Unacceptable Fails to meet one or more requirements in the solicitation identified and major revisions would be required to make the proposal acceptable.

Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be considered for award.

The rating of the Offeror’s Technical Capability will determine whether or not the Government will consider the Offeror for award. To be determined technically acceptable, an offeror’s proposal must receive Acceptable ratings on all Technical Sub-Factors. The Government will proceed as follows based on Technical Capability rating:

a. If deemed technically acceptable: Proceed to evaluate Offeror’s past performance and price.

b. If deemed technically unacceptable: The Offeror's proposal will not be considered for award.

The Government will rate each Technical Sub-Factor either Acceptable or Unacceptable, as follows:

Factors and Sub- Factors

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria SOW Reference

Factor 1. Technical Capability: The approach the offeror proposes to meet the SOW requirements dated 3 May 2018.

Sub-Factor 1.1

Database will provide manufacturers’ instructions for use (IFU) for reusable medical equipment (e.g.

surgical & dental instruments, endoscopes & other reusable devices).

Provide current list of medical equipment that’s maintained in the database

Paragraph:

2.1.1

Sub-Factor 1.2

Service will provide multiple, simultaneous access to the site via internet/world wide web, 24/7 access and technical support—Excluding maintenance periods (for periods 30 days or more appropriate notification is required.

Provide server capability, COA for maintenance periods

Paragraphs:

2.2.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4

Sub-Factor 1.3

Provide a monthly usage report displaying the number of users and number of reviews accessed.

Provide a detailed list of users to include high volume items, peak times by name/MTF/area

Paragraph:

2..2.6

Past Performance (Factor 2) The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort, as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation and recent within 5 years from the date of this solicitation is issued.

a. The Offeror shall include documentation regarding their relevant past performance as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. The Offeror shall provide no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts performed for Government agencies and/or commercial customers within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. In the event an Offeror is not able to provide any documentation regarding relevant past performance within the last five (5) years, then the Offeror shall provide a statement to that effect. If it is discovered by the Contracting Officer that an Offeror failed to disclose a relevant contract, the contracting officer may find the Offeror nonresponsive and ineligible for contract award. In your selection of recent and relevant projects/programs, consider the following:

Recency for the purposes of evaluation under this solicitation, recency is relevant past performance within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. More current past performance will be weighed greater than less recent history.

Relevancy as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and the Offeror’s role as a subcontractor and/or teaming partner or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source selection requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. More relevant past performance will weigh more than less relevant past performance.

b. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or similar systems, and commercial sources.

Offeror’s are reminded that both independent data and data provided by Offeror’s in their proposals may be used by the Government to evaluate Offeror past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the Offeror’s. Proposals that do not contain the information requested, risk rejection. Below is the past performance relevancy rating method.

Table 2. Relevancy Method Adjectival Rating Description

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 some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

c. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products (as applicable) and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. Past Performance Confidence Assessment will be evaluated using the following ratings (see Table 2):

Table 2. 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.

All past performance comments received will be taken into account and could affect the overall rating. The overall past performance evaluation is a subjective decision based on the whole of all data received. 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 (see FAR 15.305

(a) (2) (iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and be deemed “neutral.”

d. The Offeror shall include documentation regarding their relevant past performance as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation using Attachment 5-1 “Contract Reference Sheet”. The Offeror shall provide no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts performed for Government agencies and/or commercial customers within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The submittal shall include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance and how it was determined that the work performed previously was the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the work specified by this solicitation. In the event an Offeror is not able to provide any documentation regarding relevant past performance within the last five (5) years, then the Offeror shall provide a statement to that effect. If it is discovered by the Contracting Officer that an Offeror failed to disclose a relevant contract, the contracting officer may find the Offeror nonresponsive and ineligible for contract award.

e. The Offeror shall use Attachments 3-6 – To validate the past performance history. The contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all priced offers based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the Offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in the solicitation, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance.

The Government will evaluate proposals. However, proposals will not be ranked using non-price factors/sub-factors for the technical evaluation. In order to be considered for award, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every technical sub-factor and the pricing must be determined by the Contracting Officer as fair and reasonable.

Pricing (Factor 3)

Insert the proposed prices for base period (12 months) and four (4) – one year option periods in the pricing work-sheet or excel spreadsheet with matching headings and correct calculations. Offerors must enter a unit price and extended price for line items containing labor. Pricing shall be based on 76 Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) each for a 12-month period of performance. Multiply the proposed unit price by the stated quantity to determine the extended price for each of these line items.

Offers will be evaluated utilizing price analysis techniques to determine if the price is complete, reasonable, and realistic. Unreasonably high/unrealistically low, inaccurate or incomplete price proposals may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using price analysis techniques.

Price will not be scored or rated, but will be ranked from lowest to highest total evaluated price (TEP).

Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). Through these techniques the Government will determine whether the proposed prices are complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced.

Additional Documentation. The Government reserves the right to require the submission of Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data as is deemed necessary to arrive at a fair and reasonable price.