HT001422R000800001.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 revise Section M as indicated herein. See Summary of Changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 30-Jun-2022

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 HT001422R0008

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

28-Jun-2022

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 is extended, X 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

30-Jun-2022

CODE

DHA CONTRACTING OFFICE-(NCR-CD) HT0014

8111 GATEHOUSE ROAD

2ND FLOOR

FALLS CHURCH VA 22042

HT0014 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HT001422R0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION M ꞏ EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.l Contract Evaluation and Award

The Government intends to award a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract to the Offeror whose proposal provides the overall best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government reserves the right to make award to other than the lowest-priced Offeror and other than the highest technically rated Offeror.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and may award a contract without discussions or exchanges with Offerers. The Government may establish a competitive range in the evaluation of proposals and discussions may be held only with Offerors within the competitive range. 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 a number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

In the evaluation of all Offerors' proposals, appropriate consideration is given to six (6) evaluation factors:

Technical Capability, Management and Retention Plan, Quality Control Plan, Past Performance Risk, Small Business Participation Commitment/Plan and Cost/Price. The evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance. The combined non-price factors (Technical Capability, Management and Retention Plan, Quality Control Plan, Past Performance and Small Business Participation Commitment/Plan), are significantly more important than Price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “acceptable” must be achieved on all non-price factors, except for past performance. The Small Business Participation Commitment will be evaluated on a PASS/FAIL basis. An offeror which receives a substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, or unknown confidence (neutral) past performance rating shall be considered for award.

Cost/Price is of least importance.

It is the offeror's responsibility to insure the completeness of its proposal. The government will evaluate on the basis of the information provided in the proposal. The Government shall not make assumptions regarding the offeror's proposal or capabilities, unless specifically discussed in the proposal. Proposals that arc unrealistic technically or unrealistically low in price or cost may be considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the contract's requirements.

M.2. Rejection of Offers

The Government reserves the right to reject an offer if the offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents required by Section L.

M.3. Basis for Award The award decision will be based on the evaluation of all factors set forth in this solicitation. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and represents the best value to the Government. The Government evaluation process will permit tradeoffs among the specific evaluation factors and will allow award to other than lowest priced Offerors(s) or other than the highest technically rated Offeror (s).

Each proposal will be evaluated against the factors described herein. An Offeror's failure to address any factors may be considered indicative of the Offeror's lack of understanding of the Government's requirements and may result in the offer being determined unacceptable. Offcrors must ensure all information pertaining to the factor is addressed in that particular portion of the proposal.

Proposals will be adjectivally rated against each of the evaluation factors set forth in Section M and will be given an overall adjectival rating. The adjectival ratings to be used for Technical, Management and Retention Plan, and Quality Control Plan factors are: Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable, and will be factually based. The past performance confidence assessments are substantial, satisfactory, limited, no, and unknown confidence. The Small Business Participation Factor will be evaluated on a PASS/FAIL BASIS.

M.3.1. FACTOR I -TECHNICAL CAPABILITY-The Government will evaluate the offeror's technical approach on its completeness, quality, feasibility, practicability, innovativeness, and appropriateness in accomplishing the tasks and deliverables of this requirement from a technical perspective, to include the management of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). The Government will also evaluate the offerors on the clarity of their approach and their ability to convey to the Government their ability to perform the requirements in the PWS. The evaluation assesses the offeror's Technical Approach to meet the Government's requirements. It assesses the offeror's understanding and capability of performing the Government's Requirements, and the effectiveness of its proposed plan for the orderly and effective transition of services during the initial phase-in of the contract.

M.3.2. FACTOR II - MANAGEMENT AND RETENTION PLAN: The offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of the requirement for the support described in the PWS, and demonstrate how the offeror's proposed management approach and management organization, to include key personnel, will deliver timely quality services. The offeror shall also be evaluated regarding the effectiveness of its proposed management plan in integrating the effo1is of a geographically dispersed workforce at multiple locations and the effectiveness of its management of its proposed partners, subcontractors, and vendors. The plan will also evaluate the offeror's plan for managing and controlling costs and projecting and reporting cost disparities and growth to the Government. The retention plan and company policy will be evaluated to determine the offeror's ability to retain employees and subcontracts with minimum turnover and to achieve contractually established fill rates for each professional grouping (physicians, nurses, clinical investigators/researchers and ancillary personnel) for all locations stated in the solicitation. Applicable retention incentives, training programs and methods to achieve the required fill rates will be evaluated.

M.3.3 FACTOR III - QUALITY CONTROL PLAN:_ The Offeror's Quality Control Approach and Draft Quality Control Plan will be evaluated for the degree to which the Offeror's approach to quality control identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which, are likely to result in successful outcome within cost and on schedule.

The technical capability, management and retention plan, and quality control plan will be separately evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

RATING DESCRIPTION

OUTSTANDING

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

GOOD

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is average.

MARGINAL

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

M.3.4 FACTOR IV - PAST PERFORMANCE RISK (PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE)

The Government will evaluate the Offerors and, if appropriate, its proposed subcontractors' past performance information to determine its relevance to the current requirements and the extent to which it demonstrates that the offeror has successfully completed relevant contracts in the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The past performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing the Offeror's recent and relevant, present and past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to this solicitation. Areas of relevance include having provided qualified employees in contracts of similar size and scope as the solicitation

In assessing the Offeror's past performance, the Government will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that Offeror's record of past and present performance. In this context, "Offeror" refers to the proposed prime contractor and a proposed major subcontractors or team members. A major subcontractor or team member is defined as one who will be providing at least 25 percent of the contract effort. In either case, the proposed prime contractor and proposed major subcontractors will be assessed individually and the results will then be assessed in their totality to derive the prime offeror's past performance rating. The Government may consider the offeror's past performance as an entire team including subcontractors, joint ventures and/or teaming partners, aggregately, rather than an individual contractor basis.

The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based on the quality, relevance and recency of the offeror’s past and present performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. The evaluation may also take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies and key personnel who have relevant past performance. When assessing performance risk, the Government will focus its inquiry on the past performance of the Offeror and its proposed major subcontractors as it relates to all solicitation requirements. These requirements include all aspects of quality performance and supportability, management, and timeliness/schedule.

Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources. Since the Government may not necessarily interview the sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government will assign a neutral rating to Offerors with no relevant past performance information within the past three (3) years, or when past performance information regarding the offeror is not available or the information is inadequate to make an adjectival rating of the offeror’s past performance.

Offerors are also cautioned that the award of an indefinite delivery, multiple award, or schedule contract does not constitute, in itself, evidence of past performance. Past performance will be evaluated based upon the performance of delivery or other orders placed against such contracts.

A performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each offeror after evaluating its recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to contract requirements.

The following ratings are used in evaluating whether an offeror's past performance of a current or past contract is relevant to the requirement to be acquired.

The first aspect, how relevant a recent effort was accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired, will be rated using the following ratings:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentia11y 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 eff01t 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.

Each contract will also be evaluated based upon the quality of performance.

The final aspect, each offeror wi1l receive an overall confidence assessment as follows:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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 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.

M.3.5 FACTOR V- SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT/PLAN

Part I - Small Business Participation Commitment

The Government shall evaluate this factor on a PASS/FAIL basis.

The Government will assess a large business offeror’s evidence of compliance with the 40% small business participation requirement.

Provided it submits acceptable small business participation information required in Section L for srna11 businesses, an offeror that qualifies as a small business will be rated as acceptable under this factor.

Part II - Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Each Large Business offcror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all the elements required by FAR 52.219-9. This plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation Plan information required above, which applies to Large businesses. The Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather, a requirement for award to a Large Business and it will be incorporated into any resultant contract.

M.3.4 M.3.6 FACTOR VI – COST/PRICE EVALUATION

• General

The offeror's cost/price proposal will be separately evaluated and will not be separately rated or scored. No adjectival ratings shall be utilized in evaluating cost or price.

An offeror's proposal shall represent the offeror's best efforts to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency between promised performance and proposed prices/costs shall be explained in the proposal.

The Government will evaluate each proposal for completeness, reasonableness and cost realism.

Completeness: The cost/price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror has provided sufficient data necessary to adequately evaluate its proposal, to include meeting content and format requirements, and the ability to track costs throughout the cost/price proposal. Assumptions and estimates are clearly identified and justified.

Reasonableness: The cost/price proposal will be evaluated to determine the reasonableness of the offered prices. The analytical techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 may be used singly or in combination with others in determining whether an offeror's prices are fair and reasonable.

Realism: The cost proposal, to include its cost elements and profit or fee, will be evaluated to detem1ine whether the estimated cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, and reflect a clear understanding of the contract's requirements. The evaluation will result in a government estimate of the offeror's probable costs, which will reflect the Government's estimate of the costs that are most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal.

The cost/price proposal will also be evaluated to assess whether the proposed costs are consistent with the Performance Work Statement, and whether the proposed costs are reasonable and consistent.

An offeror's proposed costs/prices which are determined to be unrealistically low or high may be construed as evidence of the offeror's lack of understanding of the requirements and may adversely affect the offeror's evaluation.

• Unbalanced Pricing. The Government may determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices including labor rates be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exist when, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated.

• Professional Compensation

Additionally, the compensation plan evaluation will consider if the proposed plan is appropriate for the work to be performed and reflects a clear understanding of the requirements. The compensation plan will be evaluated to ensure the proposed compensation plan is sufficient to attract and retain qualified employees. The Government will evaluate the compensation hourly rate paid to each position to ensure the rate is realistic in terms of impact upon attracting and retaining employees and that the rates are competitive with the market compensation hourly rates.

Compensation plans that reflect an inappropriate risk of being able to recruit and retain quality qualified employees wilI be adversely evaluated and may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of the cost/price proposal.

(End of Summary of Changes)