Attachment 4 - Submission Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Procedures 07-12-2010.pdf

Submission Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Procedures

The purpose of this commercial item solicitation is to competitively award a 5-year (one year base plus four (4) one year options) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) performance based contract for Medical, Psychological, Fitness, and Drug Testing services. It is anticipated that this will be a single award IDIQ and that individual orders will be issued as hybrid task orders.

The Government anticipates that the majority of this effort may be performed under NAICS code 621511 Medical Laboratories, size standard: $13.5 million.

SUBMISSION DUE DATES

QUESTIONS:

All questions are due no later than 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 29, 2010. Questions shall be submitted in writing via e-mail. Telephonic questions will not be accepted.

Questions shall contain the RFP number and title. E-mail all questions to Juanita Jones at Juanita.Jones1@dhs.gov and Carmen G. Rios at Carmen.Rios1@dhs.gov. Questions with the Government’s responses will be posted to the FedBizOpps website. Please be advised that the Government reserves the right to transmit those questions and answers of a common interest to all prospective Offerors. Questions submitted by a method other than electronic mail will not be accepted and will not be answered.

PROPOSALS:

Technical and price proposal documents are due no later than 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 13, 2010. Each volume shall be clearly marked by Volume Number and Title.

Submissions received after the specified deadline date/time WILL NOT be accepted. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to get the submission in on time. All submissions shall be emailed to: Juanita.Jones1@dhs.gov and Carmen.Rios1@dhs.gov.

This email copy will be the copy used to determine the time of receipt of the proposals.

A hardcopy and a copy on CD shall be delivered to:

Juanita Jones

OAQ/MS 5750

ICE

801 I STREET NW FL 9 Suite 910

WASHINGTON DC 20536-5750

ATTACHMENT 4

RFP: HSCESS-10-R-00001

mailto:Daniel.Hall@dhs.gov mailto:Carmen.Rios1@dhs.gov

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

All vendors wishing to reply to this request shall respond in the following format.

The submission shall be arranged in four (4) separate volumes. However, Volume IV (Subcontracting Plan) is only require for offerors that are large business. Paper size shall be 8.5” x 11” and Font size no smaller than “12” in Times New Roman. A double-sided page will count as 2 pages.

Volume I: Technical (25 page limit). Pages in excess of 25 pages will not be evaluated. However, please note that technical assumptions, past performance information, and résumés are not included in this page limitation. Offerors shall not include pricing information in their technical proposal.

Any introductory language which describes the nature of the vendor, its history, its achievements, or its areas of specialization may be included in this section. Please limit to 2 pages (not included in the 25 page limit for technical).

The vendor shall include a cover letter including any exceptions to the terms and conditions of the RFP.

Volume II: Socio Economic Status/Usage (no page limit)

Volume III: Price (no page limit)

Volume IV: Subcontracting Plan (no page limit) -- for large business only

VOLUME I: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Assumptions: Offerors shall indicate, in this section only, if any technical related assumptions have been made, conditions have been stipulated or exceptions have been taken with the Statement of Work (SOW) as written. These assumptions, conditions and exceptions shall be written in red and listed on the first three pages of Volume I. If technical assumptions are not noted in this volume and this section of the proposal, it will be assumed that the Offerors proposal reflects no technical assumptions for award and agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions set forth herein. It is not the responsibility of the Government to seek out and identify assumptions, conditions, or exceptions buried within the Offerors proposal. Accordingly, any technical related assumptions listed in any other volume or section shall be null and void.

PART 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH /LOGISTICAL CAPABILITIES

The Offerors shall provide a description of their technical approach, detailed and complete enough to clearly and fully demonstrate their understanding and capabilities to carry out the requirements of the SOW. Proposals which merely offer to conduct a program in accordance with the requirements of the Government’s SOW may not be considered for award. Phrases such as “Standard procedures will be employed” and “well known techniques will be used” are not considered adequate descriptions. Although it is recognized that all of the technical criteria cannot be detailed in advance, the techniques and procedures the offeror plans to follow in conjunction with the task areas to be performed must be described in as much detail as the Offeror considers necessary to fully explain and demonstrate their proposed technical approach and capabilities.

At a minimum, the Offeror’s Technical Approach/Capabilities shall:

Describe how it will carry out the requirements for pre-employment medical services, employee medical services, fitness for duty, psychological, and drug/alcohol screening services, urine collection procedures, providing expert testimony, and training of contractor personnel.

PART 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Offeror’s Management Approach shall:

a. Provide a Staffing Plan that includes an organizational chart that describes the approach to manage the Project Team, including teaming arrangements, lines of authority and communication, and Project Team problem resolution methodologies.

b. Provide a Transition Plan for phasing-in from the current contract. The plan should include the assumptions of the facilities, equipment, hiring, training of personnel, and transference of information. The Offeror shall identify risks associated with the transition and their proposed approach on mitigating those risks areas and an estimated timeframe from contract award to the ability to be fully operational.

PART 3: KEY PERSONNEL

The Offeror shall provide resumes of Key Personnel proposed including a description of their relevant experience, education, and qualifications. Resumes for the Key Personnel shall be included as an attachment to the Technical Proposal and shall be no longer than 2-pages each. The resume attachment will not count towards the 25 page limit on the Technical Proposal. Key personnel for this effort are as follows: Medical Review Officer (MRO), Primary Reviewing Physician(s), Program Manager (PM), and Contracts Administrator (CA).

All resumes, at a minimum, shall include the following items:

Name Program position for which proposed with the percentage of their time proposed Company Affiliation and Current Location Current Title and Position (current employee or contingent hire) Education: (Year, Degree, Institution, Subject Area) Certifications or certificates obtained that are important/relevant to the position proposed Technical and/or Management Work Experience (showing from/to dates, title/position during the time period, companies where they worked, and a short but specific description of their experience and responsibilities)

Key Personnel Certification: Offerors shall provide the following certification: "I certify that each individual proposed as Key Personnel was contacted after the issue date of the Solicitation and that each individual has confirmed that they are available for contract performance." Resumes must be signed and dated by the employee and a corporate executive. If proposed Key Personnel are not currently in the employment of the Offeror, a written agreement from the potential employee to work will be part of the technical proposal and must be signed by the employee and the Offerors' management.

This agreement will not count towards the 25 page limit.

PART 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror shall submit relevant past performance information requested below (1 through 11) for up to three (3) contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to this requirement, started or completed within the past 3 years (measured from the date of this solicitation). Relevant is defined as work similar in size, scope and complexity as the work identified in the SOW. Please include the following information:

1. Project Title

2. Description of the Project, scope, and responsibilities

3. Contract/Task Order Number

4. Contract/Task Order Amount

5. Government Agency/Organization

6. COTR’s name, address, phone number and email address

7. Contracting Officer’s name, address, telephone number

8. and email address

9. Current status, e.g. completed and/or in progress, start and estimated completion dates

10. Key personnel

11. A brief narrative of why your firm believes this reference is relevant to the proposed task

Offerors are to provide the Past Performance Questionnaire (See Attachment 5) to a maximum of three (3) Federal and/or commercial customers who will complete the questionnaire and return it via e-mail attachment no later than the proposal due date to the contract specialist and contracting officer at the following e-mail addresses:

Juanita.Jones1@dhs.gov Carmen.Rios1@dhs.gov

Please ensure that the telephone numbers listed are correct and active for all points of contact listed prior to submission.

VOLUME II: SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS/USAGE

DHS Mentor-Protégé Program. If the Offeror participates in the DHS Mentor-Protégé Program, a signed letter of mentor-protégé program approval by the Office of Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) is required to be submitted under this factor. Agreements approved by other agencies are not acceptable.

Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program – Targets. The Offeror must provide targets, expressed as percentages of potential contract value, for SDB participation. The Offeror must state the name of the SDB, describe the proposed subcontracts, and include approximate dollar values of the subcontracts. Evaluation of SDB participation will be a subjective assessment based on the Offeror’s SDB participation targets (expressed as dollars and percentages of the total value of the proposal), and the extent to which the SDB is specifically identified in the Offeror’s proposal.

VOLUME III: PRICE PROPOSAL

Assumptions: Offerors shall indicate, in this section only, if any price related assumptions have been made, conditions have been stipulated or exceptions have been taken with the PWS as written. These assumptions, conditions and exceptions shall be written in red and listed on the first pages of Volume III. If not noted in this volume of the proposal, it will be assumed that the offerors proposal reflects no price assumptions for award and agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions set forth herein. It is not the responsibility of the Government to seek out and identify assumptions, conditions, or exceptions buried within the Offerors proposal. Accordingly, any price related assumptions listed in any other volume or section shall be null and void.

The offeror is to complete Attachment 2 (MS Excel Spreadsheet -- Schedule of Services) with the CLINs anticipated for the effort. Please note that Attachment 2 contains five (5) tabs (Summary, Base Period, Option I, Option II, Option III, and Option IV). The Offeror shall not alter the settings, formulas, rows and/or columns of Attachment 2.

Vendors should submit proposals on a Firm Fixed-Price basis or Labor Hour (Not to Exceed) basis as structured on the CLINs. On occasion, the Government may require the expediting of requests listed in Attachment 2. In those instances, the Government requires the time to be reduced to 5 days for all tests.

The following information shall also be included under Volume III:

a. Cover Letter including any exceptions to the terms and conditions of the RFP.

b. Name of Vendor

c. Address

d. Dun & Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number

e. Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)

f. Point of Contact

g. Telephone Number

h. Facsimile Number

i. Email Address

j. Proposal Number

k. Date of Proposal

l. Proof of registration in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR); the web address for CCR is www.ccr.gov.

m. Proof of registration in the Online Representation & Certifications Application

(ORCA); the web address for this application is http://orca.bpn.gov.

n. NAICS code(s)

o. The vendor shall complete all fill-ins including 3052.209-72, Organizational

Conflict of Interest (June 2006)

p. The vendor shall complete the following provisions:

a. 52.209-7 Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (April 2010)

b. 52.222-25 Affirmative Action Compliance (April 1984)

c. 52.232-28 -- Invitation to Propose Performance Based Payments (March

2000)

VOLUME IV: SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (for large business only)

Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The Offeror’s small business subcontracting plan shall contain the level of detail set forth in FAR 19.704. A sample of a Subcontracting Plan is provided under Attachment 5. In addition, Offerors shall provide a record of previous performance in carrying out the goals of subcontracting plans by including a copy of its FY09 SF 294 and SF 295 subcontract reports. If the Offeror has had no previous contract requiring a subcontracting plan, include a statement to that effect in the proposal. Failure to submit the subcontracting plan may render the Offeror non-responsive and ineligible for award. The DHS small business goals stated below are http://www.ccr.gov/ http://orca.bpn.gov/ applicable to this procurement and shall be utilized for developing a subcontracting plan in response to this solicitation Offerors are encouraged to propose goals that are greater than these stated DHS goals.

Small Business (SB) 40% Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns (SDB) (Includes SDB’s in represented and under-represented areas*

5%

Women Owned Small Business Concerns (WOSB) 5% HUBZone Small Business Concerns (HBZ) 3% Veteran Owned Small Business Concerns (VOSB) 3% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (SDVOSB)

3%

Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) N/A

EVALUATION FACTORS

The evaluation factors are listed below:

A) Technical Approach/Logistical Capabilities B) Management Approach C) Key Personnel D) Past Performance E) Socio Economic Status/Usage F) Price

This is a best value / trade-off procurement. The evaluation factors above are in descending order of relative importance. Factors A, B, C, D, and E are referred to as technical factors. Technical factors (when combined) are significantly more important than Factor F, Price. As the technical evaluation of proposals approaches equality, price becomes more important in making the award determination. In the event that two or more proposals are determined to be technically equivalent, award may be made to the lower priced proposal. It should be noted that award may be made to other than the lowest priced proposal if the Government determines that a price premium is warranted due to technical merit.

FACTOR A: TECHNICAL APPROACH/LOGISTICAL CAPABILITIES

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach, logistical capabilities, and methods for maintaining quality of deliverables while carrying out pre-employment medical services, employee medical services, fitness for duty, psychological, and drug/alcohol screening services urine collection procedures, providing expert testimony, and training of contractor personnel.

FACTOR B: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Government will evaluate:

a. Offeror’s Staffing Plan including its organizational chart and proposed approach to adequately manage the Project Team, (including teaming agreement details and mechanics), lines of authority and communication and problem resolution methodologies.

b. The quality, thoroughness, and realism of the offeror’s proposed Transition Plan for phasing-in from the current for a period of 45 days.

FACTOR C: KEY PERSONNEL

The Government will evaluate the qualifications of the proposed key personnel’s resumes and their technical experience and professional certifications to the extent that they are appropriate to address the requirements of the SOW.

FACTOR D: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance information of a similar size, scope and complexity, as proven by the successful management of current and previous contracts of a similar size, scope and complexity during the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of the solicitation as it relates to:

a. Quality of Service

b. Contract Performance

c. Timeliness of Performance

In performing this evaluation, the Government will consider the Offeror’s past performance information provided by the Offeror (up to 3 references) and may consider information obtained from other sources as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort.

If there is no relevant past performance information, past performance will be rated as neutral.

FACTOR E: SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS/USAGE

Note: Sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance.

The offeror must use the Protégé as a subcontractor for this procurement in order to receive credit. The proposed participation in the DHS Mentor-Protégé Program will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror possesses a signed letter of mentor-protégé agreement approval from the DHS OSDBU in accordance with the following HSAR provision:

3052.219-72 Evaluation of prime contractor participation in the DHS mentor protégé program (JUNE 2006)

This solicitation contains a source selection factor or subfactor regarding participation in the DHS Mentor-Protégé Program. In order to receive credit under the source selection factor or subfactor, the Offeror shall provide a signed letter of mentor-protégé agreement approval from the DHS Office of Small Business and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) before initial evaluation of proposals. The contracting officer may, in his or her discretion, give credit for approvals that occur after initial evaluation of proposals, but before final evaluation.

(End of provision)

In no instances, will lack of participation in the DHS Mentor Protégé Program will be evaluated as a proposal “weakness”.

An assessment based on the Offeror’s SDB participation targets (expressed as dollars and percentages of the total value of the proposal) shall be made for Sub-factors b. The assessment shall be based upon the Offeror’s achievement of the Department’s small business goals for SDB for this specific proposal. Please note the Department’s small business goals for this socio-economic category is 5%.

FACTOR F: PRICE

The Price Proposal will be evaluated for accuracy, completeness, and reasonableness but will not be assigned an adjectival rating. For award purposes, the Government will evaluate the prices for the base period as well as all options. 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).

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

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.

DEFINITION OF RATINGS

The Government will evaluate the technical factors using the following adjectival ratings:

Adjectival Symbol Applicable to Factor A (Technical Approach/Logistical Capabilities), Factor B (Management Approach), and Factor

C (Key Personnel)

Outstanding O The Offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, are expected to result in superior achievement of the Government’s objectives with minimal risk. An “Outstanding” rating indicates that the Proposal contains significant strengths with no weaknesses. The Offeror indicates a great likelihood for effective, efficient and innovative performance and includes significant potential for improved overall program compliance, responsiveness and measurable customer satisfaction

Very Good VG The Offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, are expected to result in full achievement of the Government’s objectives with minimal risk. A “Very Good” rating indicates that the Proposal contains significant strengths and few weaknesses.

The Offeror indicates a high probability for effective, efficient, and innovative performance and includes solutions for improving overall program compliance, responsiveness and measurable customer satisfaction.

Acceptable

A The Offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, introduce moderate risk but are considered likely to produce performance results meeting the Government’s objectives. An “Acceptable” rating indicates that the proposed solution contains a number of strengths, but also some weaknesses.

Marginal M The Offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, introduce a high risk that expected performance would not achieve the Government’s objectives. A marginal rating indicates that the proposed solution contains few strengths, and significant weaknesses.

Adjectival Symbol Applicable to Factor A (Technical Approach/Logistical Capabilities), Factor B (Management Approach), and Factor

C (Key Personnel)

Unacceptable U The Offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, introduce a unacceptable risk that expected performance would not achieve the Government’s objectives. An “unacceptable” rating indicates that the proposed solution contains no strengths and significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Adjectival Symbol Past Performance

Outstanding O The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that DHS can expect superior performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with very low risk.

Very Good VG The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that DHS may expect highly satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort with minimal risk.

Acceptable A The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, specifically relates to and suggests that the DHS may expect satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Offeror’s past performance record reflects minimal prior DHS experience and suggests some risk.

Marginal M The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, suggests that the Government may expect less than satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Offeror’s performance record presents a high degree of risk.

Unacceptable U The Offeror’s record of past performance, as applicable, suggests that the Government may expect unsatisfactory performance and customer satisfaction for this effort. The Offeror’s performance records present a high degree of risk.

Neutral

N A “Neutral” rating indicates an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on relevant past performance is not available.