HT001424R0004 Amendment 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:

1. Update Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 and FAR 52.212-5

2. Incorporate updated PWS

3. Update Attachment 5

4. CLIN 0010 to 4010 adjusted quantities.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 22

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 22-Dec-2023

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 HT001424R0004

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Dec-2023

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

22-Dec-2023

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:

HT001424R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0010

The pricing detail quantity has decreased by 165,000.00 from 200,000.00 to 35,000.00.

CLIN 1010

CLIN 2010

CLIN 3010

CLIN 4010

DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCE

The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0010 has been changed from:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 01-FEB-2024 TO

31-JAN-2025

N/A WRNMMC- HT0017

KEREAN P. KELLIER

8901 WISCONSIN AVENUE

BETHESDA MD 20889

301-319-4638 FOB: Destination

HT0017

To:

DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

POP 01-FEB-2024 TO

31-JAN-2025

N/A WRNMMC- HT0017

KEREAN P. KELLIER

8901 WISCONSIN AVENUE

BETHESDA MD 20889

301-319-4638 FOB: Destination

HT0017

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 ADDENDUM

Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services

1. This requirement is in support of the Patient Administration Department (PAD) at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC). The DHA Contracting Activity (DHACA) Northeastern Markets Contracting Division (NEM-CD) intends to award one contract in accordance with FAR 19.5 and procedures set forth in FAR Part 15.

2. To be accepted and eligible for award, proposals must be prepared in accordance with these instructions and the terms and conditions contained in this solicitation. The government reserves the right to award without discussions.

3. This section provides the general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. For timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offers must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award.

4. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Offerors 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.

5. Point of Contact: The individuals listed below are the primary and alternate points of contact for this acquisition. Address all questions or concerns to both POCs no later than 15 December 2023. Written requests for clarification may be sent to both POCs via email. Email is the preferred method of communication.

Primary Contact

Rosalynd Clayton, Contract Analyst DHA Contracting Activity (DHACA) Northeastern Markets Contracting Div (NEM-CD) Email: rosalynd.d.clayton.ctr@health.mil

Alternate Contact Maria Jaine A. Sipin, Contracting Officer DHA Contracting Activity (DHACA) Northeastern Markets Contracting Div (NEM-CD) Email: mariajaine.a.sipin.civ@health.mil

6. Proposal Organization and Page Limitations

The offeror shall organize the proposal as set forth in Table 1, Proposal Organization. The offeror’s proposal shall be formatted into three separate volumes and title as follows.

Volume I – Technical Capability Volume II – Past Performance Volume III – Price

Table 1: Proposal Organization Solicitation reference

Volume Title Page Limit

File Name Example(a)

52.212-1 Addendum para. 9.1

I – Technical Capability

Section 1: Subfactor 1 – Brief Management

ABC.VolI.Sect1

Section 2: Subfactor 2 – Workforce Management Approach

ABC.VolI.Sect2

52.212-1 Addendum para. 9.2

II-Present/Past Performance

Section 1: Previous Contract #1 15 (4 approx. 5 pages per reference)

ABC.VolII.Sect1 Section 2: Previous Contract #2 ABC.VolII.Sect2 Section 3: Previous Contract #3 ABC.VolII.Sect3 Section 4: Past Performance Recipient List

ABC.VolII.Sect4

52.212-1 Addendum para. 9.3

III – Price Section 1: Signed Standard Form 1449

Unlimited ABC.VolIII.Sect1

Section 2: Authorized Offeror Personnel ABC.VolIII.Sect2 Section 3: Price Proposal Workbook ABC.VolIII.Sect3

Notes:

(a) File name example is for ABC Corporation

6.1. Proposal Submission. Offerors shall submit proposal via email to rosalynd.d.clayton.ctr@health.mil and mariajaine.a.sipin.civ@health.mil by the solicitation due date, 10 January 2024 at 4:00PM EST.

6.2. Page Size and Format. A page is defined as each face of an 8.5 x 11-inch sheet of paper containing information. Page margins shall be a minimum of 1-inch each for the top, bottom, and sides. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document and footnotes, the text size shall be no less than 11 point in Times New Roman or Arial font.

6.3. Pricing Information. All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Volume III – Price.

Cost or price information may be used in other volumes only as appropriate for presenting rationale for alternatives or decision-making processes.

6.4. Cross-referencing. Each volume shall be written on a standalone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no requirement to cross reference to other volumes of the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of their proposals and the Government will NOT search for information that is not provided in the required Volume,

6.5. Glossary or Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

6.6. Illustrations and Tables. Charts, illustrations, tables, or diagrams shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches paper. For page count purposes, this page will count as two (2) 8.5 x 11-inch pages and shall only be used for graphics and exhibits. Text used for call-outs on graphics and exhibits shall be no smaller than 8-point Times New Roman or Arial, after final reductions.

6.7. Redacted or Sanitized Copy. One copy of Volume I – Factor 1 Technical Capability shall conform to the following:

6.7.1. Offerors shall remove all company-identifiable information, to include but not limited to names (offeror name, individual names, current and past employers, joint-venture/partner names, etc.), logos, and other artwork.

6.7.2. Headers and footers shall have a black, 12-point, Times New Roman font and contain solicitation number, volume number, and page numbers only. Logos and other separators and shapes are not permitted.

7. Solicitation Technical Clarifications. Offerors who determine that the technical requirements of this solicitation require clarification(s) in order to permit submittal of a responsive proposal are requested to submit all questions in writing to the maximum extent possible within 5 business days from release of the solicitation. These questions shall be directed to the POCs identified above.

8. Determination of Competitive Range

8.1. Based on the ratings for technically acceptable proposal against all evaluation criteria, the SSA may establish a competitive range comprised of all the most highly rated proposals unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. Offerors are hereby advised that only those proposals determined to have a reasonable chance for award of a contract will be included in the competitive range.

8.2. Offerors should submit initial proposals on their most favorable terms, from both a technical and price standpoint. It should be noted that proposals will not be included in the competitive range solely on the basis of technical acceptability, nor will they be included due to price considerations along. Offerors whose proposal are not included in the competitive range will be notified as soon as practicable.

Additional information relative to such proposals will be provided through debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

9. Specific Proposal Preparation Instructions

9.1. Volume I – Factor 1 Technical Capability

9.1.1. Subfactor 1: Management Plan

9.1.1.1. The contractor’s brief management overview, technical capabilities, and information on limitation on subcontracting compliance will be reviewed for technical acceptability. The contractor’s proposed approach to this task order shall in the management overview and technical capabilities section. Proposal is determined acceptable if the offeror’s organizational structure demonstrates an effective method to reach back to corporate prime and/or subcontractor knowledge bases to access additional expertise.

Offeror shall demonstrate its experience and expertise in coding for complex healthcare environments.

9.1.1.2. If the proposal is not fully acceptable as submitted, discussions may be conducted with either one or all offerors. The Government reserves the right to not consider inadequate proposals. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed technical approach cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the KO reserves the right to withdraw or to commence discussions with the next qualified contractor.

9.1.2. Subfactor 2: Workforce Management Approach

9.1.2.1. Offeror shall include with its proposal a Recruitment and Retention/Turnover Plan as to mitigate risk in break in service. Recruitment/Retention/Turnover plan shall include how the contractor will ensure all positions required in this effort are filled within 30 days from date of award.

9.1.2.2. The offeror shall submit a Workforce Management Approach covering the prime and subcontractor workforce. The Workforce Management Approach must demonstrate the proposed workforce capability and capacity to meet the requirements. The workforce management approach shall include:

9.1.2.2.1. A description of the offeror’s approach for recruiting, retention, qualifications, credentials of potential candidates to ensure they possess appropriate levels of certification currency, education, experience, and expertise; ensuring individuals receive proper training to perform their work. The offeror’s methodology must describe the offeror’s approach to personnel qualifications and licensure/certifications/credentials are maintained without additional cost or intervention from the Government, including currency of and renewal before expiration during the term of the contract performance to avoid potential impacts to schedule or performance.

9.1.2.2.2. The approach shall describe the offeror’s process to ensure qualified personnel are available upon the negotiated start date avoiding potential impacts to schedule or performance. In addition, a description of how the prime will maintain qualified stable workforce after the contract has been awarded to ensure customer requirements are met, services are provided on time, and within budget.

9.1.2.2.3. The offeror’s approach shall maximize continuity and minimize disruption and describe how it will mitigate risks associated with changes in key and other management personnel should a change in personnel occur. The approach shall also include the process to ensure continuation of services during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, and voluntary or involuntary termination from employment such that the impact to the Government is minimal and position vacancies do not exceed 30 calendar days.

9.1.2.2.4. The approach shall describe the process to provide qualified, stable workforce with minimal turnover of personnel including a total compensation plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

9.2. Volume II – Factor 2 Present/Past Performance

9.2.1. Past Performance Information Form (PPIF). Offerors shall complete and provide with their proposal Past and Present Performance Information Form (see Attachment 2) for efforts that have at least six (6) months of performance during the thirty-six (36) months preceding the issue date of this solicitation. Submit information on no more than three (3) recent and relevant contracts performance for federal agencies and commercial customers. Include rationale supporting your assertion that the contract is recent and relevant and identify aspects of the contracts deemed recent and relevant to this requirement.

The performance should be relevant as defined in this solicitation. Offeror shall submit no more than a total three relevant PPS for itself and any sub-contractor performing at least 25% of the requirement.

9.2.2. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ): A PPQ (Attachment 4) is provided with the solicitation so that offerors may send them to the references listed on their Past and Present Performance Reference form (Attachment 3). Past performance references who have returned the questionnaires will be used in the past performance assessment. Each offeror is responsible for sending the attached past performance questionnaire to its chosen references. Upon completion of the questionnaires, they shall be returned directly from the references to the attention of Rosalynd Clayton and Maria Jaine Sipin.

9.2.2.1. Completed questionnaires must be submitted no later than the offer due date and time indicated on SF 1449, Block 8. This requirement for the submission of the questionnaires is in addition to the requirement for past performance information requested in paragraphs 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 above.

9.3. Volume III – Price

9.3.1. Complete the “Signature of Offeror/Contractor” part of the Standard Form (SF) 1449 in Blocks 12, 17a, 30a, 30b, and 30c. An authorized official of the firm must sign SF 1449. Provide complete pricing for all items in CLIN 0001 through 4010 for the base period and all option periods.

9.3.2. Authorized Offeror Personnel: The offeror shall provide the name, title, email address, and telephone number of offeror point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to the Offeror’s proposal and who can obligate the Offeror contractually. Identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government along with the name, title, and telephone number of the CEO, Division President, Vice President, or similar person of the Offeror for notification purposes.

9.3.3. The offeror shall submit with its proposal completed “Price Proposal Workbook” provided as Attachment 5 to this solicitation. Use of provided “Price Proposal Workbook” will expedite the evaluation of the cost proposal. Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted unless you consider it essential to document or support your cost/price position. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

9.3.4. Price Proposal Support. The burden of proof for the credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror. Provide an explanation of the method of cost buildup so that the evaluator can readily identify how each computation was made. All indirect rates and factors should be fully explained as to the method and base of application. Rounding: All loaded fully burdened FFP hourly labor rates shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

9.3.5. Other Cost/Pricing Information. Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted unless you consider it essential to document or support your cost position. All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall cost/price information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

52.212-2 ADDENDUM

Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services

1. The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1 – Technical Capability Factor 2 – Past/Present Performance Factor 3 – Price

Technical and Past/Present Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

2. Basis for Contract Award

2.1 The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of past performance and price for proposals determined to be technically acceptable, with technical and past performance, when combined, being evaluated as significantly more important than price. The Government intends to award one contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the Request for Proposals (RFP) requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFP and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria and the Government reasonably determines that the superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost/price difference.

2.2 Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written proposals (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors. Any such exchange between the offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute discussions within the meaning of FAR 15.306(a). While the Government’s evaluation team will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, performance, and price standpoint.

2.3 All proposals will be evaluated first for technical acceptability followed by a past performance price trade off (PPT) evaluation with past performance evaluated significantly higher than price. The evaluation process will be conducted as follows:

2.3.1 An evaluation of technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal shall be made. IAW FAR 15.306(a) & (b), prior to establishing the competitive range of proposals for this acquisition, the contacting officer may request clarifications, and/or have communications with offerors to determine technical acceptability of their proposal IAW the solicitation requirements.

2.3.2 Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussion, clarifications, and/or communications, will be considered for further evaluation and award.

2.3.3 All technically acceptable offers determined to pass the technical evaluations will then be ranked by total evaluated price.

2.3.4 Evaluate lowest priced Offeror’s past performance and price in accordance with the evaluation approach described in paragraphs 4 and 5 below. If past performance is “Substantial Confidence” and the proposed priced is determined reasonable and balanced (see paragraph 5 below), then the evaluation process is complete. If the past performance assessment of the lowest priced proposal is not “Substantial Confidence”, then the next lowest priced Offeror’s past performance and price will be evaluated. The Past Performance Evaluation and Price Team will continue evaluating the next lowest priced Offeror’s proposal until an Offeror is rated “Substantial Confidence” or until all Offerors within the competitive range are evaluated. At this point, the evaluation is complete and the SSA proceeds to the integrated best value assessment of the evaluated Offerors.

2.3.5 If the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest total evaluated price also has received a past performance rating of “Substantial Confidence”, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

2.3.6 If the lowest priced offeror does not have a past performance confidence assessment of “Substantial Confidence,” the Government will evaluate the next lowest priced offeror’s past performance. This process will continue (in order by price) until the next lowest priced offeror’s past performance is rated “Substantial Confidence” or until all offerors are evaluated and, at this point, an integrated assessment based on tradeoff between past performance and price will be conducted.

2.3.7 The Government reserves the right not to award a contract to the technically acceptable, lowest evaluated price offeror if that offeror is judged to have other than a Substantial Confidence past performance evaluation rating. In these cases, the source selection authority shall make an assessment of the price proposed, the past performance evaluation rating assigned and, based upon the requirements of the acquisition, trade the past performance rating against price to determine the best value for the government.

3. Technical Evaluation (Factor 1: Technical)

The government shall evaluate the technical proposal on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable, therefore, ineligible for awardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

3.1 Subfactor 1: Management Plan

3.1.1 This subfactor evaluates the contractor’s technical capability to provide medical coding and transcription services as identified in the PWS.

3.1.2 Measure of Merit: The offeror must demonstrate in its Management Plan its capability and capacity to meet the requirements in this solicitation. This subfactor is met when the offeror:

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

3.1.2.1 Demonstrates a sound corporate and/or team structure with sufficient depth and breadth of experience and expertise to accomplish the tasks identified in the PWS. The offeror’s structure demonstrates an effective method to reach back to corporate Prime and Subcontractor knowledge bases to access additional expertise. The offeror shall demonstrate its experience and expertise in coding for complex healthcare environments.

3.1.2.2 The offeror demonstrates a corporate structure to ensure effective and efficient business operations of this contract with direct relationship between the senior leadership and management personnel assigned.

3.2 Subfactor 2: Workforce Management Approach

3.2.1 This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach to provide, manage, and retain appropriate qualified workforce to achieve the requirements of the PWS successfully and effectively on schedule and within budget in accordance with all the requirements specified in this solicitation. This subfactor is met when:

3.2.1.1 The offeror’s approach demonstrates a sound and comprehensive planning, resourcing, processes to recruit, retain, train, and manage qualified personnel at the proposed labor rates to accomplish the tasks expected to be performed in the PWS. Approach demonstrates an organization with sufficient workforce with the depth and breadth of medical coding experience to accomplish the tasks in the PWS.

3.2.1.2 The approach includes the process the offeror uses to validate credentials of potential candidates to ensure they possess appropriate levels of education, experience, and expertise; and ensuring individuals receive proper training to perform their work.

3.2.1.3 The offeror’s methodology describes the offeror’s approach to ensure personnel qualifications and licensure/certifications/credentials are maintained without additional cost or intervention from the Government, including currency of and renewal before expiration during the term of the contract performance to avoid potential impacts to schedule or performance.

3.2.1.4 The offeror’s approach demonstrates how the offeror will maximize continuity and minimize disruption to schedule or performance and how it will mitigate risks associated with changes in personnel should a change in personnel occur. The approach includes the process to ensure continuation of services during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, and voluntary or involuntary termination from employment such that the impact to the Government is minimal and position vacancies do not exceed 30 calendar days.

3.2.1.5 The offeror’s approach describes the process to provide qualified, stable workforce with minimal turnover of personnel in accordance with FAR provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees).

4. Performance Evaluation (Factor 2: Past/Present Performance)

4.1 The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on each offeror based on (1) information provided by the offeror, (2) past performance questionnaires, and (3) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

4.2 The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to make an evaluation of the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in the solicitation, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment represents the government evaluation team’s judgment of the probability of an offeror successfully accomplishing the requirement in this solicitation based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. Past performance evaluation is accomplished through the assignment of a confidence rating based on assessing offeror’s relevant past performance history focusing in and targeting performance that is relevant to the solicitation. Not that these assessment ratings are subjective based on the past performance information collected.

4.3 A PPQ (Attachment 4) is provided with the solicitation so that offerors may send them to the references listed on their Past and Present Performance References form (Attachment 3). Past performance references who have returned questionnaires will be used in the past performance assessment. The government may follow-up on the non-responses to surveys. Upon receipt of the past performance surveys, the government will screen the information provided for each of the referenced contracts to make initial determination of its recency and relevancy to the current requirement.

4.3.1 Recency: For a past performance to be considered recent, a current effort must be ongoing for at least six (6) months prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. A completed effort must be performed during the past 60 months from the date of this solicitation. Past performance information that failed this condition will not be evaluated.

4.3.2 Relevancy: The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts resemble the scope, magnitude, and complexity of this requirement. Scope assessment will consider the number of FTEs relevant to this requirement. Magnitude assessment will consider the overall dollar value of the effort. Complexity assessment will review the healthcare environment of the medical coding services performed (i.e. DoD hospitals, federal hospitals, etc.). A more relevant past performance record will be weighted more heavily than a less relevant performance record.

TABLE 3 – Past Performance Relevancy Rating

RATING DEFINITION

HIGHLY RELEVANT Past performance effort involved in recruiting, qualifying, managing, and retaining medical coders workforce with appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities required to support:

45 or more FTEs OR Contract value of $5M or more per year, and

DoD hospitals or equivalent (i.e. federal hospitals, trauma facilities)

RELEVANT Past performance effort involved in recruiting, qualifying, and retaining medical coders workforce with appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities required to support:

30 FTEs or more OR Contract value of $3M or more per year

Teaching hospitals or equivalent

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Past performance effort involved in recruiting, qualifying, managing, and retaining medical coders workforce with appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities required to support:

15 FTEs or more OR Contract value of $1.5M or more per year

Hospitals

NOT RELEVANT Past performance effort involved in recruiting, qualifying managing, and retaining medical coders workforce with appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities required to support:

Less than 15 FTEs OR Contract value less than $1.5M

4.3.3 Quality: The government will review the performance quality of recent and relevant effort. For each past performance reference collected, the performance quality of the work performed will be assess in the past performance questionnaire, CPARS, interviews with government customers and commercial clients.

The quality level assigned by the performance rates are shown in the table below.

Table 4 – Performance Quality Rating

DESCRIPTION PERFORMANCE LEVEL

Exceptional The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

Very Good The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory The contractor’s performance met contractual requirements.

The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was resolved satisfactorily.

Marginal Performance did not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance reflected a serious problem for which the Contractor did not yet identify corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appeared 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 contained serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appeared, or were, ineffective

Not Applicable Unable to provide a performance level

4.4 The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in Table 5, Performance Confidence Assessments (excerpt below). Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

Table 5 – 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.

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.

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.

4.5 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of past performance. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or response to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

5. Price Evaluation (Factor 3: Price)

5.1 The Government will use the Attachment 5, Price Proposal Worksheet, to formulate TEP for all offerors for comparison purposes per FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i). TEP will be evaluated for price reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. If no unbalanced pricing identified, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated further based on TEP, calculated as stated below. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

5.2 Price Reasonableness. Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b), in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b). IAW FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1 are anticipated to determine price reasonableness. Price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of each Offeror’s TEP and will be used to satisfy the requirement mandated by FAR 15.305(a)(1). Price reasonableness may also be determined based on the comparison of each Offeror’s TEP to the average TEP amongst all technically acceptable proposals.

5.3 Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to cost/price, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An example of unbalanced offer would be proposed labor rates that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to other proposed rates or other labor categories. The Government may consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between option periods or the proposed prices from year to year or above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. Offeror’s proposals that are determined unbalanced may be rejected. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8 by adding one-half of the offeror’s final option period prices to the offeror’s total price. Thus, the offeror’s TEP for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period and all option periods. Offerors are required only to price the base and option CLINs.

Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential one-half extension of services period. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

5.5 The KO has determined there is a high probability of adequate competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial proposal, the KO will review this determination and if, in the KO’s opinion, adequate price competition, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the KO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, Offerors may be required to submit Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data information.

5.6 In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), information other than cost or pricing data is required to support the cost realism analysis or the price reasonableness determination (price analysis) for the total evaluated price. Therefore, information other than certified cost and pricing data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the KO determines there is insufficient information available to determine cost realism and/or price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit cost or pricing data.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

List of Attachments

Attachment No.

Title Pages Date

1 Performance Work Statement Includes PWS Exhibits

35 22-Dec-2023

2 Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) 2 8-Dec-2023 3 Past Performance Recipient List 1 8-Dec-2023 4 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) 4 8-Dec-2023 5 Price Proposal Workbook 7 22-Dec-2023

52.212-5 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES OR

EXECUTIVE ORDERS--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2023)

(a) The Contractor shall comply with the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses, which are incorporated in this contract by reference, to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial products and commercial services:

(1) 52.203-19, Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements (JAN 2017) (section 743 of Division E, Title VII, of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L.

113-235) and its successor provisions in subsequent appropriations acts (and as extended in continuing resolutions)).

(2) 52.204-23, Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab and Other Covered Entities (NOV 2021) (Section 1634 of Pub. L. 115-91).

(3) 52.204-25, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment. (NOV 2021) (Section 889(a)(1)(A) of Pub. L. 115-232).

(4) 52.209-10, Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations (NOV 2015).

(5) 52.232-40, Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (MAR 2023) (31 U.S.C. 3903 and 10 U.S.C. 3801).

(6) 52.233-3, Protest After Award (AUG 1996) (31 U.S.C. 3553).

(7) 52.233-4, Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim (OCT 2004s) (Public Laws 108-77 and 108-78 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note)).

(b) The Contractor shall comply with the FAR clauses in this paragraph (b) that the Contracting Officer has indicated as being incorporated in this contract by reference to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial products and commercial services: [Contracting Officer check as appropriate.]

X (1) 52.203-6, Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales to the Government (JUN 2020), with Alternate I (NOV 2021) (41 U.S.C. 4704 and 10 U.S.C. 4655).

X (2) 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (NOV 2021) (41 U.S.C. 3509).

___ (3) 52.203-15, Whistleblower Protections under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (JUN 2010) (Section 1553 of Pub. L. 111-5). (Applies to contracts funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.)

___ (4) 52.203-17, Contractor Employee Whistleblower Rights (NOV 2023) (41 U.S.C. 4712); this clause does not apply to contracts of DoD, NASA, the Coast Guard, or applicable elements of the intelligence community--see FAR 3.900(a).

X (5) 52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (JUN 2020) (Pub. L. 109-

282) (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).

___ (6) [Reserved]

___ (7) 52.204-14, Service Contract Reporting Requirements (OCT 2016) (Pub. L. 111-117, section 743 of Div.

C).

___ (8) 52.204-15, Service Contract Reporting Requirements for Indefinite-Delivery Contracts (OCT 2016) (Pub.

L. 111-117, section 743 of Div. C).

X (9) 52.204-27, Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application (JUN 2023) (Section 102 of Division R of Pub.

L. 117-328).

X (10) 52.209-6, Protecting the Government's Interest When Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment. (NOV 2021) (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).

X (11) 52.209-9, Updates of Publicly Available Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (OCT 2018) (41 U.S.C. 2313).

____ (12) [Reserved]

____ (13) 52.219-3, Notice of HUBZone Set-Aside or Sole-Source Award (OCT 2022) (15 U.S.C. 657a).

____ (14) 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns (OCT 2022) (if the offeror elects to waive the preference, it shall so indicate in its offer) (15 U.S.C. 657a).

____ (15) [Reserved]

X (16)(i) 52.219-6, Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside (NOV 2020) (15 U.S.C. 644).

____ (ii) Alternate I (MAR 2020) of 52.219-6.

____ (17)(i) 52.219-7, Notice of Partial Small Business Set-Aside (NOV 2020) (15 U.S.C. 644).

____ (ii) Alternate I (MAR 2020) of 52.219-7.

X (18) 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (SEP 2023) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(2) and (3)).

____ (19)(i) 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SEP 2023) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)).

____ (ii) Alternate I (NOV 2016) of 52.219-9.

____ (iii) Alternate II (NOV 2016) of 52.219-9.

____ (iv) Alternate III (JUN 2020) of 52.219-9.

____ (v) Alternate IV (SEP 2023) of 52.219-9.

____ (20) (i) 52.219-13, Notice of Set-Aside of Orders (MAR 2020) (15 U.S.C. 644(r)).

____ (ii) Alternate I (MAR 2020) of 52.219-13.

X (21) 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (OCT 2022) (15 U.S.C. 657s).

____ (22) 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages—Subcontracting Plan (SEP 2021) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)(F)(i)).

____ (23) 52.219-27, Notice of Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside (OCT 2022) (15 U.S.C.

657f).

X (24) (i) 52.219-28, Post-Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation (SEP 2023) (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(2)).

____ (ii) Alternate I (MAR 2020) of 52.219-28.

____ (25) 52.219-29, Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole-Source Award to, Economically Disadvantaged Women- Owned Small Business Concerns (OCT 2022) (15 U.S.C. 637(m)).

____ (26) 52.219-30, Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole-Source Award to, Women-Owned Small Business Concerns Eligible Under the Women-Owned Small Business Program (OCT 2022) (15 U.S.C. 637(m)).

____ (27) 52.219-32, Orders Issued Directly Under Small Business Reserves (MAR 2020) (15 U.S.C. 644(r)).

____ (28) 52.219-33, Nonmanufacturer Rule (SEP 2021) (15 U.S.C. 657s).

X (29) 52.222-3, Convict Labor (JUN 2003) (E.O. 11755).

X (30) 52.222-19, Child Labor--Cooperation with Authorities and Remedies (DEC 2022) (E.O. 13126).

X (31) 52.222-21, Prohibition of Segregated Facilities (APR 2015).

X (32)(i) 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (SEP 2016) (E.O. 11246).

____ (ii) Alternate I (FEB 1999) of 52.222-26.

X (33)(i) 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (JUN 2020) (38 U.S.C. 4212).

____ (ii) Alternate I (JUL 2014) of 52.222-35.

X (34)(i) 52.222-36, Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities (JUN 2020) (29 U.S.C. 793).

____ (ii) Alternate I (JUL 2014) of 52.222-36.

X (35) 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans (JUN 2020) (38 U.S.C. 4212).

X (36) 52.222-40, Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act (DEC 2010) (E.O.

13496).

X (37)(i) 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons (NOV 2021) (22 U.S.C. chapter 78 and E.O. 13627).

____ (ii) Alternate I (MAR 2015) of 52.222-50 (22 U.S.C. chapter 78 and E.O. 13627).

____ (38) 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification (MAY 2022). (E. O. 12989). (Not applicable to the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf items or certain other types of commercial products or commercial services as prescribed in FAR 22.1803.)

____ (39)(i) 52.223-9, Estimate of Percentage of Recovered Material Content for EPA–Designated Items (MAY 2008) (42 U.S.C. 6962(c)(3)(A)(ii)). (Not applicable to the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf items.)

____ (ii) Alternate I (MAY 2008) of 52.223-9 (42 U.S.C. 6962(i)(2)(C)). (Not applicable to the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf items.)

____ (40) 52.223-11, Ozone-Depleting Substances and High Global Warming Potential Hydrofluorocarbons (JUN 2016) (E.O. 13693).

____ (41) 52.223-12, Maintenance, Service, Repair, or Disposal of Refrigeration Equipment and Air Conditioners

(JUN 2016) (E.O. 13693).

____ (42)(i) 52.223-13, Acquisition of EPEAT® Registered Imaging Equipment (JUN 2014) (E.O.s 13423 and 13514).

____ (ii) Alternate I (OCT 2015) of 52.223-13.

____ (43)(i) 52.223-14, Acquisition of EPEAT® Registered Televisions (JUN 2014) (E.O.s 13423 and 13514).

____ (ii) Alternate I (JUN 2014) of 52.223-14.

____ (44) 52.223-15, Energy Efficiency in Energy-Consuming Products (MAY 2020) (42 U.S.C. 8259b).

____ (45)(i) 52.223-16, Acquisition of EPEAT®-Registered Personal Computer Products (OCT 2015) (E.O.s 13423 and 13514).

____ (ii) Alternate I (JUN 2014) of 52.223-16.

X (46) 52.223-18, Encouraging Contractor Policies to Ban Text Messaging While Driving (JUN 2020) (E.O.

13513).

____ (47) 52.223-20,…