HT001125R0001-0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to provide additional responses to questions inadvertently omitted from Amendment 0001 and make changes resulting from those responses, as follow s:

1. Corrects Performance Work Statement (Attachment 01) Part 1 paragraph numbering and references, clarif ies inclusion of OCONUS travel, adds number of Government-furnished w ork spaces

2. Corrects Addendum to 52.212-2 evalution factor numbering

See Summary of Changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 6

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Jan-2025

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X HT001125R0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13-Dec-2024

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

08-Jan-2025

CODE

DHA CONTRACTING OFFICE-(PS-CD) HT0011

7700 ARLINGTON BLVD

FALLS CHURCH VA 22042

HT0011 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HT001125R0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 27-Jan-2025 04:00 PM to 03-Feb-2025 04:00 PM.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 01 Performance Work

Statement (0001)

54 03-JAN-2025

Attachment 02 Contract Data Requirements List

13 22-OCT-2024

Attachment 03 DHA Form 49, Nondisclosure Agreement

2 22-MAR-2019

Attachment 04 Common Access Card Request Process

15 01-JAN-2018

Attachment 05 DCMD TASS Application

01-JAN-2018

Attachment 06 PII, PHI and Federal Information Requirements

10 27-OCT-2020

Attachment 07 Government Furnished Equipment List

23-OCT-2024

Attachment 08 Wage Determinations 45 24-OCT-2024 Attachment A Pricing Worksheet (0001) 03-JAN-2025 Attachment B Past Performance

Questionnaire

18-OCT-2024

Attachment C Disclosure of Contracts 11-OCT-2024 Attachment D List of DHA Funding

Activity Codes

11-OCT-2024

Attachment E Subcontractor Past Performance Consent

1 18-OCT-2024

Attachment F Responses to Questions 15 03-JAN-2025 to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 01 Performance Work

Statement (0002)

07-JAN-2025

Attachment 02 Contract Data Requirements List

13 22-OCT-2024

Attachment 03 DHA Form 49, Nondisclosure Agreement

2 22-MAR-2019

Attachment 04 Common Access Card Request Process

15 01-JAN-2018

Attachment 05 DCMD TASS Application

01-JAN-2018

Attachment 06 PII, PHI and Federal Information Requirements

10 27-OCT-2020

Attachment 07 Government Furnished Equipment List

23-OCT-2024

Attachment 08 Wage Determinations 45 24-OCT-2024 Attachment A Pricing Worksheet (0001) 03-JAN-2025 Attachment B Past Performance

Questionnaire

18-OCT-2024

Attachment C Disclosure of Contracts 11-OCT-2024 Attachment D List of DHA Funding

Activity Codes

11-OCT-2024

Attachment E Subcontractor Past Performance Consent

1 18-OCT-2024

Attachment F Responses to Questions (0002)

18 07-JAN-2025

The following have been modified:

CLAUSE(S) 52.212-2 - ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

Replace 52.212-2 paragraphs (b) as follows:

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding half of the amount of the proposal’s second option period prices to the proposal’s total price. Thus, the total price for the purpose of evaluation will include all CLINs in the phase-in period, all CLINs in the base period, all CLINs in the first and second option periods, one-half of CLINs in the second option period, and all CLINs in the phase-out period.

Append the following paragraphs to 52.212-2:

(d) Basis for Award. Assessment of the proposals will follow FAR Part 15 procedures. Award of a contract will be made on a competitive basis, using “best value subjective tradeoff” among price and factors other than price. The Government may to award to other than the lowest priced proposal, or other than the proposal rated highest in factors other than price. Only proposals receiving ratings of at least “Acceptable” in all factors other than price and determined to be fair and reasonable in price will be considered for award. The contracting officer intends to award without discussions but may enter into discussions if it is in the Government’s interest to do so. If entering into discussions, award will be based on evaluation of the Final Proposal Revisions.

(e) Factor 1 Technical Approach. The Government will review Volume 1 narrative; labor hours, labor categories, and labor category descriptions from Volume 5; and percentage of contract value to be performed by the offeror and similarly situated subcontractors from price evaluation of Volume 5 to assess the feasibility of the approach and the offeror’s capability to perform the essential PWS tasks listed at Addendum to 52.212-1, paragraph (n)(2). The evaluation will record comments characterized according to paragraph (k)(1). The evaluation will record a Significant Weakness for each performance period where percentage of contract value to be performed by the offeror and similarly situated subcontractors would not comply with 52.219-14 (DEVIATION 2021-O00008) as incorporated in this solicitation. This factor will assign a combined Technical and Risk rating as described at paragraph (k)(2) of this Addendum to 52.212-2.

(f) Factor 2, Experience. The Government will review Volume 2 narrative and Volume 3, Section 3, Key Personnel Resumes, to assess the offeror’s experience in performing the tasks identified at Addendum to 52.212-1, paragraph (n)(3). The evaluation will record comments characterized according to paragraph (k)(1). This factor will be assigned a combined Technical and Risk rating as described at paragraph (k)(2) of this Addendum to 52.212-2. For any task not addressed, the evaluation will assume the offeror has no experience performing that task. Evaluation comments addressing experience gained in support of DoD programs or healthcare administration may carry more weight in the best value analysis as compared to evaluation comments addressing experience gained from support of other activities. Evaluation comments addressing experience of Key Personnel may carry more weight in the best value analysis as compared to evaluation comments addressing corporate experience not attributed to Key Personnel.

(g) Factor 3. Program Management. The Government will review Volume 3, Sections 1, to determine the offeror’s ability to organize, plan, report, prioritize, schedule work and complete tasks. The evaluation will record comments characterized according to paragraph (k)(1). This factor will be assigned a combined Technical and Risk rating as described at paragraph (k)(2) of this Addendum to 52.212-2. Consideration will be given to the degree to which the proposed processes appear effective and flexible in planning, organizing, scheduling, reporting, and sufficient for completing tasks. Consideration will be given to the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to screen and hire qualified personnel to successfully accomplish the requirements. Additional, consideration will be given offeror’s demonstration of processes for internal team communication, monitoring team performance and resolving conflicts.

(h) Factor 4, Quality Control Plan. The Government will review Volume 3, Section 2, draft Quality Control Plan, to determine whether the approach to quality control identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which are likely to result in successful outcomes within the cost and on schedule. An “Acceptable” rating will be assigned if the plan addresses all the required elements at Addendum to 52.212-1, paragraph (n)(4)(ii), and the plan demonstrates a realistic and reasonable approach. Otherwise, an “Unacceptable” rating will be assigned.

(i) Factor 5, Key Personnel. The Government will review Volume 3, Section 3, to verify that Key Personnel meet minimum requirements of PWS paragraph 1.6.11. An “Acceptable” rating will be assigned if all requirements are met, otherwise an “Unacceptable” rating will be assigned.

(j) Factor 6, Transition Plan. The Government will review Volume 2, Section 4, Transition Plan, to determine whether the Offeror’s proposed transition plan clearly demonstrates a reasonable approach for transitioning contract responsibilities to another contractor without disruption of program support. An “Acceptable” rating will be assigned if the plan addresses all the required elements at Addendum to 52.212-1, paragraph (n)(4)(iv), and the plan demonstrates a realistic and reasonable approach. Otherwise, an “Unacceptable” rating will be assigned.

(k) Technical and Risk Ratings. The Technical Approach factor, Experience factor, and Program Management factor will receive a rating based on evaluation comments applied to the criterial below.

(1) Evaluation Comments. Evaluation comments affecting factor ratings will be characterized as Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, or Deficiencies as defined below.

Evaluation Comment Definitions

(2) Technical and Risk Rating Scale.

Strength An aspect of a proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Combined Technical and Risk Ratings Scale

Rating Definition and Criteria

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths. Impacts of any weaknesses have little potential to disrupt schedule, increase cost or degrade performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength. Impacts of a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses have little potential to disrupt schedule, increase cost or degrade performance; or may disrupt schedule, increase cost or degrade performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring, up through special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring, will likely overcome difficulties.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Impacts of a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses may disrupt schedule, increase cost or degrade performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely overcome difficulties.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements;

or impacts of a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses would likely disrupt schedule, increase cost or degrade performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

(l) Factor 7: Past Performance. The Government will review Volume 4, past performance questionnaires from references, and past performance information obtained from other sources to identify reports of recent and relevant past performance. Recent efforts are those performed within the last three years from release of this solicitation, including efforts currently being performed. Relevant past performance for the offeror is like service as stated in this solicitation’s Performance Work Statement in terms of similar scope and complexity. Relevant past performance for other team members is like service in terms of scope and complexity to the portion of the solicitation’s Performance Work Statement that they are proposed to perform. A past performance reference is either relevant or not relevant. Recent and relevant past performance will be reviewed for favorable and adverse findings. Consideration will be given to quality of service, timeliness, effectiveness in managing, directing resources, coordinating, and reasonable and cooperative behavior in dealing with customers and the ability to control cost and manage schedules. The Government will consider the collective record of recent and relevant past performance in determining the Past Performance confidence rating. The Government will attempt to contact references identified in Volume 4 to confirm past and present performance data identified in proposals and may obtain additional past and present performance data from other sources.

Past Performance Confidence Assessments Standards Acceptable Indicates that the offeror has historically performed in a satisfactory manner in the fulfillment of like or similar requirements. The past performance record represents that the Schedule holder is capable of adequately performing the requirement. This rating indicates a low level of performance risk to the Government.

Neutral The offeror has no record of recent, relevant past performance or the record of recent, relevant past performance so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Unacceptable Indicates that the offeror has historically failed to perform in a satisfactory manner in the fulfillment of like or similar requirements. This rating indicates an unacceptable level of performance risk.

(m) Price. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness using analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). Travel costs will be additionally evaluated for realism.

(1) The total evaluated price will be calculated from the Volume 5 pricing sheet. Calculation of total evaluated price is described in paragraph (b) of this Addendum to 52.212-2.

(2) For labor performed by service employees, as defined in 52.222-41, calculations in Volume 6 demonstrating compliance with Service Contract Labor Standards will be reviewed to ensure that fully burdened labor rates cover minimum wages, paid time off, and health and welfare benefits specified in the wage determinations.

(3) The evaluation will examine calculation of the percentage of contract value to be performed by the offeror and similarly situated subcontractors by performance period and provide this to the technical evaluation. If the contracting officer determines that a subcontract NAICS code does not accurately reflect the services to be performed by the subcontractor and that the subcontractor would not be similarly situated under the solicitation NAICS, the evaluation will exclude that subcontract from the contract value to be performed by the offeror and similarly situated subcontractors.

(n) Best Value Subjective Tradeoff. The selection authority will conduct tradeoff analysis after evaluation of proposals. If the contracting officer elects to enter into discussions, trade-off analysis will be performed following evaluation of Final Proposal Revisions. Only offers rated Acceptable or Neutral in the Past Performance factor;

evaluated to be fair and reasonable in price; rated at least Acceptable in all other evaluation factors; and compliant with all other requirements of the solicitation will be considered for award and enter into tradeoff analysis. The selection authority will compare weighted evaluations ratings and comments which distinguish one offer from another to the difference in price of the offers. The better value of two offers will be compared to the next offer, and so on, until one offer is determined to be a better value of all other offerors. This offer is the best value and will be selected for award. Trade-off analysis is not intended to produce a ranking of all offers.

(End of Addendum to 52.212-2)

(End of Summary of Changes)