Attachment 5 - Evaluation Factors NRP.pdf

Attachment 5

Nationally Registered Paramedic (NRP) Certification Courses

Solicitation # FA805224R0005

FAR Provision 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (February 2024)

52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

As prescribed in 12.301(c), the Contracting Officer may insert a provision substantially as follows:

EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021)

(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.

This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. A decision on the technical acceptability of each Offeror’s technical proposal shall be made based on the evaluation criteria listed in the attached evaluation criteria document and the PWS.

Evaluation may be made with or without discussions with the Offeror(s). The offers shall be evaluated against the following three (3) factors, listed in order of importance:

a. Factor 1: Technical Capability

b. Factor 2: Past Performance

c. Factor 3: Price

When looking at t

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Technical Capability Proposals will be given a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. A technically acceptable proposal shall have a sound technical approach that meets all

Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements.

Technical Capability shall address the following subfactors as detailed below:

Subfactor 1: Training Requirements

Subfactor 2: Accreditation

Subfactor 3: Location

EVALUATION FACTORS & SUBFACTORS

PWS

Paragraph

Requirements

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

SUBFACTOR 1: TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

1.2.1 Provide the required training for up to 35 Emergency Medical Technicians per class (20 student minimum).

3.1 Provide real world, objective-based, “ride along” (field internship) clinical program for all Paramedic students.

3.1 Maintain medical oversight relationship with EMS system with Advanced

Life Support (ALS) call rate greater than 35%. (Provide documentation of relationship and that ALS calls exceed 35% during previous 2 years.)

3.1 Provide training that does not exceed 134 calendar days, including student travel. Training will consist of ALS courses for Paramedic certification with

NREMT to include: Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS), Pediatric

Advanced Life Support (PALS), and Basic Life Support (BLS).

SUBFACTOR 2: ACCREDITATION

3.2 Accredited by the Committee on Accreditation of Educational Programs for the Emergency Medical Services Professions (CoAEMSP) as an approved program for paramedic training and certification. A CoAEMSP Letter of

Review (LOR) is acceptable. (Provide proof of CoAEMSP Accreditation or

LOR). Provide training required to certify EMTs to the Paramedic Level

IAW established standards set forth by the National Registry of Emergency

Medical Technicians (NREMT) Paramedic certification guidelines and the

National EMS Education Standards and Paramedic Instructional Guidelines.

SUBFACTOR 3: LOCATION

3.1, 3.2 Provide a training facility located within 50 miles of a Level 1 Trauma

Center.

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED CAPABILITY

Medical physical and Hepatitis B vaccination

CPR certification

Background check/drug screening

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Recency Assessment

Relevancy Assessment

Quality of Performance

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE RATING

FACTOR 3: PRICE

Note: All costs will be evaluated as one total cost per student for CLINs

0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001.

The offers shall be evaluated against the following three (3) factors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Training Requirements

Subfactor 2: Accreditation

Subfactor 3: Location

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

DETERMINATION DEFINITION

Acceptable ALL of the minimum acceptable criteria are clearly met by the proposal. The Offeror’s proposal meets the performance and technical capability requirements defined in the PWS.

Unacceptable Not all of the minimum acceptable criteria are met by the proposal. An unacceptable proposal contains one or more deficiencies. The proposal fails to meet specified minimum performance and technical capability requirements defined in the PWS.

Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements as indicated by the Offeror’s record of past performance. Past Performance will be evaluated on a tradeoff basis with price.

(a) Ratings: Each Offeror’s Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the

Performance Confidence Assessment ratings defined in the table below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

RATING DEFINITION

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.

(b) Evaluation Process: In order for the Government to complete the Past Performance

Evaluation, the Offeror must provide no more than three (3) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and/or commercial or local government customers within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Each offeror shall submit their record of past performance of relevant effort(s) along with their solicitation proposal.

Each Offeror shall submit proposals electronically via email. Any questions whether technical or contractual in nature shall be submitted in writing via email to CO, Mr. Justin Ashley at justin.ashley@us.af.mil and Contract Specialist

(CS), Ms Ollie Stewart at ollie.stewart@us.af.mil by 18 April 2024 by 12:00

PM Central Time. Questions shall not be answered individually. Each Offeror shall submit proposals for consideration no later than 12:00pm Central Time by

22 April 2024. Proposals must be valid through 60 days after Solicitation Close.

In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the past performance information provided by the Offeror and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Contract Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or similar systems, and commercial sources. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the Offerors.

The offerors’s past performance evaluation will be based on two (2) phases, as detailed below. Phase I consists of an assessment of an offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. Phase II will evaluate the quality of past performance. Quality of past performance will not be evaluated if the offeror’s past performance is determined to be

NOT RECENT and/or NOT RELEVANT.

Phase I

• Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. For the purposes of evaluation under this solicitation, the effort(s) must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

• Relevance Assessment. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the training performed under those contracts relates to the NRP Certification

Course requirements for this effort. Consideration will be given to criteria such as similarity of length of training course, number of students in a course, value, and performance period. The relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance will be assigned one of the ratings defined in the table below –

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings.

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 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.

An absence of past performance will be considered neutral.

Phase II – Quality of Performance. The Government will consider the performance quality of efforts determined to be recent and either somewhat relevant, relevant, and very relevant. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the NRP Certification Course requirements (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered.) The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of the past performance responses and any other information from PPIRS, CPARS, and interviews with

Government customers, and if applicable, commercial clients. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports less than a satisfactory overall rating. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE

PERFORMANCE RATING DEFINITION

EXCEPTIONAL Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

MARGINAL Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

NOT APPLICABLE Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area is not applicable to the effort assessed.

(c) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevance and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment rating based on combined recency, relevance, and performance ratings for each of the contracts. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown

Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance

Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an

"Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Factor 3: Price

The price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness based upon a comparison of the

Offeror’s price to the price of competitors. Price may be traded off for a higher Performance

Confidence Assessment. A price that is very low will be verified to assure that the offeror understands what is being asked for and no mistakes have been made in preparing the price.

The offeror is to provide a Pricing Schedule for the costs of each CLIN and submit with the proposal, which will be evaluated for reasonableness. The per student price shall include all costs associated with the training, including textbooks, materials, testing, uniforms, etc. The proposed pricing schedule is provided and is subject to change. Failure to provide prices as stated above may result in the rejection of the proposal.

(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.

The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who is best suited to fulfill the Air Force requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that the past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

Past performance combined with technical capability is significantly more important than price for technically acceptable offerors. Past performance will not be evaluated for technically unacceptable offerors, and those offerors will not be considered.

(End of provision)