Instructions to Offerors - HT1129RamsteinRMC86MED_.docx

Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items And Evaluation Criteria

Addenda to FAR Clauses 52.212-1 and 52-212-2

1. This requirement is in support of the 86th Medical Group (MDG), also referred to as the Medical Treatment Facility (MTF).

2. The DHA Northeastern Markets Contracting Division (NM-CD) intends to award one Firm Fixe Price contract in accordance with FAR Part 12- Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

3. To be accepted and eligible for evaluation, quotations must be prepared in compliance with these instructions and all of the terms and conditions contained in this document.

4. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

5. All proposals are to be submitted electronically via email to philip.b.atwell.ctr@health.mil no later than September 23, 2025, 3:00PM EST. Quotes shall be submitted in a format readable by, at a minimum, Microsoft Office 2007 programs. The Government will accept searchable .pdf files except for the Compensation & Price Matrix, which is to be in a Microsoft Office Excel 2007 or more recent version.

Page limitations for each factor are specified below:

Past Performance

· Provide two (2), and. no more than two (2) completed Past Performance Summaries (PPS’) using the “Attachment 2 - Past Performance Summary template provided.

· Provide two (2), and no more than two (2) Past Performance Questionnaires using “Attachment 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire template. Note: No more than two completed PPS’ and PPQ’s are to be submitted.

Composition of Responses:

(a) Factor 1. Total Employee Compensation:

Offerors shall complete / populate the “Attachment 1 - Compensation & Price Matrix”. This template shall be completed and returned in the same MS Excel format that it is provided. Do not submit a PDF or MS Word version of this attachment or it shall not be considered responsive. Documents supporting your proposed Compensation [in accordance with paragraph (a) of FAR clause 52.222-46] shall be in Microsoft Word or PDF format using font size 10, Times New Roman font. Limit the number of pages of supporting compensation documentation to pertinent data only. Documents supporting your market research can be submitted to support your completed Compensation Matrix.

(b) Factor 2. Past Performance:

The burden of providing thorough and complete relevant past performance information and feedback resides with the vendor. The vendor shall not provide master IDIQ contract or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) ordering vehicles as past performance references. For IDIQ or BPA ordering vehicles, the Vendor shall provide a relevant (as similar as possible to the solicited effort in terms of magnitude, scope, and complexity) individual task order(s) or BPA Call(s) as a past performance reference(s). Notes: The Government will not consider past performance references that simply identify master IDIQ contract or BPA ordering vehicles with no references to relevant individual Task Orders or BPA Calls.

1. Past Performance Summaries (PPS): Past performance information submitted shall be limited to efforts that have at least six (6) months of performance occurring during the 36 months preceding the issue date of this Solicitation. The performance should be relevant (as similar as possible to the solicited effort in terms of magnitude, scope and complexity); and shall be submitted as part of the vendor’s quote.

If a vendor has no relevant and recent past performance history, the vendor must affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant and recent past performance history.

2. Past Performance Questionnaires (template is provided, identified as “Attachment 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire . ONLY use the template provided. The Vendor shall ensure that, for each PPS identified, one PPQ is also submitted supporting the PPS, completed by the customer (for a total of two PPQs maximum). A relevant CPARS report supporting a PPS may be provided in lieu of a customer completed PPQ as long as it meets the recency and relevancy criteria identified in paragraph one (above).

3. The offeror shall complete PPQ sections A. (EVALUATED CONTRACTOR’S INFORMATION), B. (CONTRACT INFORMATION) and C. (CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION) prior to sending it to the customer for their input in sections E & F. The offeror shall obtain completed PPQ’s from customers and Offeror‘s shall submit them with your proposal no later than the proposal’s due date. However, should your past customer(s) insist on providing their completed PPQ directly to this contracting office, inform them to submit it via email directly to the contract specialist Philip Atwell, philip.b.atwell.ctr@health.mil (support contractor with Amyx Inc.) no later than proposal due date.

(c) Factor 3. Price Quotation:

1. Vendors must submit a completed “Attachment 1 - Compensation & Price Matrix” with the applicable fully burdened hourly rates (for price analysis purposes) and employee base salary and fringe benefit information..

2. Vendors are notified that the Service Contract Labor Standards Statute applies to all applicable labor categories unless exempted. Vendors are responsible for determining whether employees proposed to work under the contract are covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards Statute or if they are covered by an exemption. Vendors should explain this determination in their quote and price the task order accordingly.

3. For evaluation of compensation the vendor shall complete the “Compensation and Price Matrix” (Attachment 1 Compensation & Price Matrix) and provide any supporting documentation in accordance with FAR 52.222-46 that covers each proposed employee. The documentation shall include the following items:

a. The proposed unburdened direct labor rate (base compensation) for each employee proposed.

b. The total unburdened cost of the proposed fringe benefits package for each employee proposed, including (1) a list and brief summary of the benefits that make up the fringe package (e.g. vacation time, sick leave, bonus/incentive plans, family leave, insurance); and

(2) An itemization of the benefits that require employee contributions and the amount of that contribution as a percentage of the cost of the particular benefit.

c. Supporting information to be submitted with the plan shall include data, such as recognized regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public, and private organizations used in establishing the total compensation structure.

d. For each labor category proposed, the contractor shall map to the appropriate labor category on salary.com and provide written rationale explaining why that is the appropriate labor category. In addition, the contractor must provide a dated screenshot of the selected labor categories from Salary.com that shows the information used as the basis of the comparison.

52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993)

(a) The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

(b) The Government is concerned with the quality and stability of the work force to be employed on this contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.

(c) Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

(End of Provision)

(End of Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items)

Addenda to Clause 52.212-2

Evaluation – Commercial Items

BASIS FOR AWARD. The Government will award a task order resulting from this solicitation to the responsible vendor whose quotation conforming to this solicitation’s requirements is determined to be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The Government will utilize the following evaluation criteria to identify the best value quotation for award: Factor 1 – Total Employee Compensation Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price

Evaluation Factors

Past performance will be evaluated as a significant factor. However, only those proposals determined acceptable in terms of compensation and price will be further evaluated for past performance.

The Government will evaluate proposals based on the following factors:

1. Compensation: In addition to price reasonableness, The Government will evaluate the compensation structure to ensure it aligns with applicable requirements. Proposals that do not demonstrate compliance with compensation requirements will be considered unacceptable and will not be further evaluated.

1. Price: The Government will evaluate the reasonableness, realism, and completeness of the proposed price. Price is the second factor considered in the evaluation. Price will be evaluated based on the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). An industry average will also be determined and used if the IGCE is deemed to be inaccurate. Typically, a competitive range will be established and any proposals outside this range will not be further considered. Proposals that do not demonstrate fair and reasonable pricing will be considered unacceptable and will not be further evaluated.

1. Past Performance: Past performance will be evaluated as a significant factor. Only those proposals determined acceptable in terms of Price and Compensation will be further evaluated for past performance. Past performance will be assessed for relevance and for the extent to which the offeror has demonstrated the ability to successfully perform requirements of similar size, scope, and complexity.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Total Employee Compensation, Past Performance and Price. The Offeror’s compensation plan will be evaluated as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. If an Offeror’s compensation plan is “Unacceptable” the Offeror will not be eligible for award.

Past performance is significantly more important than price.

A trade-off analysis between past performance and price will be utilized to determine which quotation represents the best value to the Government. Award may be made to other than the lowest price quotation.

(a) Factor 1. Total Employee Compensation: Table 1 (below) provides the following adjectival rating(s) that will be used to annotate the technical evaluations and will form the basis of the assignment of rating for Factor 1 (Total Employee Compensation): Factor 1 Compensation Plan: To demonstrate the employee compensation plan is sufficient enough to attract and retain qualified personnel, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s completed “Attachment 1 Compensation & Price Matrix” for each labor category, to include direct pay rate and fringe benefits and any supporting market research documentation provided in accordance with paragraph (a) of FAR clause 52.222-46. The proposed compensation plan will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46 (see Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, above), and additionally will take into consideration the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), which consists of the same factors that are identified in FAR 52.222-46.

Acceptable

The Total Employee Compensation is sufficient to recruit and retain qualified candidates to support this requirement.

Unacceptable

The Total Employee Compensation is insufficient to recruit and retain qualified candidates to support this requirement.

Table 1. Total Employee Compensation Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

(b) Factor 2. Past Performance:

Recent and relevant past performance information will be considered. The Government will focus its inquiries on the vendor’s record of performance on relevant and recent prior contracts. The Determination of relevancy includes a consideration of recent contracts which are similar in scope, type of work, and price to this solicitation’s requirements. The vendor’s record of performance will be evaluated for quality of services, timeliness of services, business relations, and other considerations. In the case of a vendor without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the vendor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In addition to PPQs, the Government may use data provided by the vendor in its PPS and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files (e.g. Past Performance Information Retrieval System) or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services. The Government reserves the right to contact any entity, including the Vendor’s (or its subcontractor’s) customers, for past performance information including, as an example, whether: (1) the Vendor is capable, efficient and effective; (2) the Vendor’s performance conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract; (3) the Vendor was reasonable and cooperative during performance; (4) the Vendor was committed to customer satisfaction; and (5) if given the opportunity, would they select the same or a different Contractor.

(1) Past Performance Rating Method: The Government will assign a rating from the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings below to each past performance contract or task order and then consider the quality of performance on each of them. Then the Government will weigh the quality of the performance on each effort in relation to the effort’s relevancy in order to determine a single rating for each Vendor from the Performance Confidence Assessments table below.

(2) Recency: Recency is assessed to ensure vendor past performance is determined based on information that is of sufficient length and currency to allow for meaningful predictive value. The Government will determine whether the past performance information submitted for this acquisition describes contracts or task orders with at least six months of performance occurring during the 36 months immediately preceding the issuance date of this TOPR submission. Prior efforts that are not recent will not be considered in determining a Performance Confidence Rating.

(3) Relevancy: Relevancy is assessed so that contract performance may be weighed in relation to its predictive value. The Government will consider the degree of similarity between recent past performance efforts and the solicited effort, in terms of scope, magnitude and complexity. Past performance information on an effort performed by, or as, a subcontractor may be deemed less relevant than performance by, and as, a prime contractor. Additionally, the nature of the customer will be examined, with greater consideration being given to prior efforts performed for Department of Defense entities, then those performed for other federal customers, for state governments and then commercial customers. Each past performance effort shall be assigned a relevancy rating from the table below. Past performance that is deemed not relevant will not be considered in determining a Performance Confidence Rating.

(4) For scope, the Government will consider the degree of similarity of the labor categories of the referenced contract to the solicited effort. Magnitude will be assessed both by comparing the similarity of the contract value and number of FTEs of the referenced contract to the solicited effort. Complexity will be assessed by analyzing factors including the number of different labor categories required, the number of facility locations supported, and unique requirements including coverage shifts and the need for essential services continuity.

(5) Performance Confidence: The Government will assess how well a Vendor is anticipated to perform on the solicited effort based on their performance on recent efforts of some relevance. For each past performance effort that is recent and at least “Somewhat Relevant,” the Government will consider the quality of the Vendor’s performance on the effort and then will weigh that performance in relation to the effort’s relevancy to determine the Government’s confidence that the Vendor will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements. That confidence, for all past performance efforts taken together as a whole, will be expressed in a single rating from the Performance Confidence Assessments table below. In the event insufficient past performance data exists for a Vendor, the overall rating for this factor will be “Unknown Confidence (Neutral).” This rating will not affect the Vendor’s overall rating in either an adverse or beneficial manner. The government will weigh more relevant and more recent past performance more heavily, than less relevant and less recent past performance.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS:

No Confidence Based on the Vendor’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Vendor will successfully perform the required effort.

(c) Factor 3: Price:

a. The Vendor’s fully burdened total price (“Attachment 1 -Compensation & Price Matrix”) will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable. The Government may use the price analysis techniques and procedures in FAR 15.404-1(b). Price will not be adjectively rated. To be eligible for award, a vendor’s price must be deemed to be fair and reasonable.

b. The Government will evaluate the vendor’s proposed compensation plan for compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards Statute, when applicable, and as specified in FAR provision 52.222-46. Failure to propose a realistic compensation plan that complies with the SCLS statute may result in rejection of the quote.

c. Options. The Government will evaluate quotations for award purposes by adding the total price for all Option periods of performance to the total price for the basic requirement of the “Compensation Matrix”. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of Option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise the Option(s). In addition, the 52.217-8 six-month extension period pricing will be evaluated by calculating an extension price based on one half of the final option period price. Total evaluated price, for award purposes only, is base plus all options years and 6-month extension, per 52.217-8.

(End of Evaluation – Commercial Items)