Instructions to Offerors_Evaluation Criteria_23 October 2020.pdf

23 October 2020 W81K00‐21‐R‐3002

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

Offerors shall submit proposals in electronic form via email no later than 12:00 P.M., Central Time (CT), 23 November, 2020. The point of contact is Rosalba Martinez, Contract Specialist, at rosalba.martinez1.civ@mail.mil and Robin M. Castro, Contracting Officer, at robin.m.castro.civ@mail.mil.

Offers shall be submitted via e-mail only. Proposals received after 12:00 PM CT on 23 November 2020 will be late and will not be considered for award.

Questions shall be submitted via e-mail to Rosalba Martinez (rosalba.martinez.civ@mail.mil) not later than 1500 CT 29 October 2020. No questions will be entertained after this date. Answers to vendor questions will be posted to FedBizOpps/beta.SAM.gov.

Note: Only electronic (e-mail) offers will be accepted. Offers submitted by any other method are unacceptable. Each volume shall be submitted as a separate file in .pdf format, with the files names clearly identifying the volume number and contractor’s name. Offerors shall also submit a sanitized version (name of contractor and personnel removed or redacted) of Volume II – Technical Capability.

Pricing shall be submitted on the Excel spreadsheet attached to the solicitation (Attachment 4), renamed with the same naming convention. A .pdf of pricing is not required. Pricing information shall be included in Volume V – Pricing only and shall not be included or summarized in any other volume. The proposal shall not contain any extraneous information such as advertisements or marketing information.

Files larger than 20MB may need to be transmitted in separate emails. All emails, regardless of size, need to be received by the Government server, by the stated submission deadline. The Government will not be responsible for any failure of transmission or receipt of the proposal, or any failure of the Offeror to verify receipt of the emailed proposal. All proposals submitted after the deadline will be considered untimely and ineligible for award.

The proposal shall be clear, concise and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiation of the validity of stated claims. Responses to this solicitation shall strictly adhere to the requirements set forth in the solicitation. Submissions that do not adhere to format and content requirements may be considered non-responsive. The Government reserves the right to eliminate any such proposals from consideration for award.

The proposal shall be prepared in five (5) separate volumes as follows.

Volume I – Administrative Volume II – Past Performance Volume III – Technical Capability Volume IV – Compensation Plan Volume V – Pricing

VOLUME I – ADMINISTRATIVE

Volume I – Administrative shall include the following:

1. A one (1) page summary or title page identifying the offeror, the full address, phone, DUNS number, CAGE code, point(s) of contact (POC(s)) of the offeror, and the solicitation number. Offeror shall include a statement that the offeror agrees to hold the offered prices firm for 120 calendar days after the proposal closing date. (Page limit: 1 page.)

2. A completed copy of PAGE 1 ONLY of the SF 1449, with the signature of a corporate officer authorized to negotiate for the company. Electronic signature is acceptable. Do not include the entire SF 1449. (Page limit: 1 page.)

3. Signed copies of PAGE 1 ONLY of any amendments to the solicitation, if any are issued.

(Page limit: 1 page per amendment, if any are issued.)

4. Representations and Certifications. Offerors shall be registered in the System for Award

Management (SAM) with the appropriate NAICS Code and shall not have any Active Exclusions listed within SAM. If the Offeror is currently registered in SAM with completed representations and certifications, an affirmation on the title page (or separate page) that these representations and certificates are current, complete, and accurate as of the date proposals are due shall suffice. Otherwise, the Offeror shall complete and include with its proposal one (1) copy of the following provisions located within the solicitation: FAR Provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications, Alternate I; FAR Provision 52.209-7, Information Regarding Responsibility Matters; plus any other provisions herein.

(Page limit: 1 page if registered in SAM; unlimited pages if including provisions.)

5. The Continuation of Essential Contractor Services Plan. This plan shall be prepared in accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services, contained in this solicitation. There is no page limit for this plan; however, offerors are encouraged to be as succinct as possible in describing how it will continue to perform the essential contractor services listed in the Performance Work Statement during periods of crisis. The plan shall identify provisions made for the acquisition of essential personnel and resources, if necessary, for continuity of operations for up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and shall address, at a minimum, (i) Challenges associated with maintaining essential contractor services during an extended event, such as a pandemic that occurs in repeated waves; (ii) The time lapse associated with the initiation of the acquisition of essential personnel and resources and their actual availability on site; (iii) The components, processes, and requirements for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel who are capable of relocating to alternate facilities or performing work from home; (iv) Any established alert and notification procedures for mobilizing identified “essential contractor service'' personnel; and (v) The approach for communicating expectations to contractor employees regarding their roles and responsibilities during a crisis.

VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE.

The offeror shall submit with its proposal evidence of relevant past performance under which YOUR company (the offeror) provided the same or similar therapeutic physicists and dosimetrist services with similar magnitude and scope in the public and/or private sector. Performance must have been by the Offeror (not by a subsidiary or sister company) either as the prime contractor or subcontractor.

Offerors shall complete and provide the Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheet

(Attachment 1) on three (3) task orders or stand-alone contracts/purchase orders the offeror will complete or has completed within the past three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation for a Government or commercial client that the offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating YOUR company’s (the offeror’s) ability to perform the proposed effort.

Include rationale supporting the assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevance, see the Evaluation Criteria for Factor 2 – Past Performance.

The PPI shall explain what aspects of the task order or contract are deemed relevant to the proposed effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the Offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior task orders or contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage performance risk. The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified.

If the offeror performed as a subcontractor on the reference project, the PPI shall explain what percentage and type of work that was performed by the offeror as subcontractor.

NOTE: Past performance reference projects performed by a proposed teaming partner or a proposed subcontractor will only be considered if: (1) the offeror submits at least one recent and relevant past performance project that the offeror has performed, either as a prime or subcontractor; (2) the teaming partner or subcontractor is identified as a teaming partner or subcontractor in the proposal, and (3) the role and percentage of work proposed to be performed by the teaming partner or subcontractor on the proposed requirement is detailed in the proposal.

Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) in accordance with the PPQ Form (Attachment 2).

The Offeror will send blank PPQs to Government agencies and/or private sector companies requesting past performance information on applicable projects.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to track and ensure the completion/submission of the PPQs by the proposal due date. The Government will not accept incomplete or late PPQs.

Note: The PPQs shall reference the exact same projects detailed in the PPIs. Each PPI Sheet is limited to 3 pages per project.

The Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance submittals and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources and/or non-Government sources, such as any commercial business or customers referenced by the Offeror in any of the past performance information disclosed. Failure to submit three (3) PPIs and PPQs with the proposal may result in the proposal being removed from consideration.

VOLUME III – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Volume III – Technical Capabilities is limited to 20 pages, 10 or 12 point font, with 0.75” or 1.0” margins (headers and footers may be at 0.5” margin). Smaller fonts may be used in headers, footers, graphs or charts, provided the information is legible. The page limitation does not include curriculum vitae (CV)/resume of proposed team members. CVs/resumes may be submitted as an addendum to Volume III. There is no page limitation for CVs/resumes.

The technical proposal, Volume III – Technical Capability, shall address the offeror’s technical capabilities in sufficient written detail for the Government to determine if the offeror understands and can adequately fulfill the Government’s requirement. Statements that the offeror understands, can or will comply with all specifications, or statements paraphrasing the specifications of parts thereof, or phrases such as “standard procedures will be used” or “well-known techniques will be used” will be considered unacceptable. The technical proposal shall provide a narrative and supporting data so that the evaluation factors listed in this solicitation can be applied to the information contained within the technical proposal.

The following information must be submitted in writing as part of the technical proposal.

Staffing Plan:

Describe your plan to staff and manage the Therapeutic Medical Physics Team, including the methods you will use to employ qualified and competent personnel to ensure services commence on the date set forth in the solicitation and throughout the life of the contract. Describe your process for ensuring your employees meet the minimum standards for education, technical skills, and experience outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Describe your processes for initial verification of licensure, certification, education, life support training and completion of the health requirements and your processes for ensuring they are kept current. Describe your process for ensuring continuing medical education requirements are met for your employees in their respective area of expertise.

Describe your proposed team structure, including supervisory or management oversight structure; discuss the relationship between employees, supervisor or management staff, the contractor representative, and the COR. Describe the procedures to be used by management to maintain contact/communications with team members to ensure all required services are being performed satisfactorily, including a description of corporate methods to provide timely information to contractor employees on subjects such as employee benefits and programs, and contract performance. Describe your employee performance evaluation processes. Describe your employee incentive program (if any). Describe your process for managing performance issues with your employees. Describe your in-service education program and methods you utilize to maintain the skills of your employees. Describe any management development program you have for your supervisory personnel. Describe your procedures for and commitment to timely payment of employees. Discuss trends and strategies necessary to provide the services required.

Provide a curriculum vitae (CV) or resume for each proposed team member describing their specific qualifications relevant to the qualification standards and requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement.

(Note: CVs/resumes are NOT included in the maximum page limitation for this section.

CVs/resumes may be included as an addendum to Volume III – Technical Capabilities.)

Technical Experience:

Describe your company’s experience in the field of radiation oncology including how many years your company has managed radiation oncology specific medical practices within government operated facilities. Describe how many years of experience the proposed Therapeutic Medical Physics Team members have in the fields of radiation oncology simulation, radiation oncology medical physics, radiation oncology dosimetry, and radiation oncology therapy. Describe your background in hiring radiation oncology simulation therapists, radiation oncology specific medical physicists, radiation oncology dosimetrists, and radiation oncology treatment therapists.

Describe your approach to adapting to new and evolving technology. Discuss your experience in incorporating new technology or radiation oncology techniques into clinical practice in other radiation oncology group(s) you have managed. Discuss your experience in evaluating new technology and assisting with the procurement process in a Department of Defense (DoD) facility. Describe your process for incorporating new technology and techniques into clinical radiation oncology practice in a timely and efficient manner.

Describe your experience in managing equipment malfunction in a DoD radiation oncology practice (with high cybersecurity requirements). Describe how you ensure technical oversight, quality assurance testing of equipment and treatment plans, machine calibration, and machine maintenance for a radiation oncology practice. Discuss how you ensure the personnel you hire are experienced in advanced radiation oncology simulation, dosimetric planning, physics quality assurance and testing, machine and equipment calibration, and therapy application. Describe your experience in simulation, dosimetric planning, physics quality assurance testing, machine and equipment calibration, and radiation oncology therapy for the following specific radiation oncology applications: three dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), linear accelerator based stereotactic radiosurgery (LINAC SRS), four dimensional simulation (4D Sim), optical surface monitoring systems (OSMS), automated and manual fiducial marker triggered imaging treatment, high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy approaches to prostate cancer, low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy approaches to prostate cancer, HDR brachytherapy approaches to gynecologic malignancies, HDR brachytherapy approaches to breast cancer, HDR brachytherapy approaches to skin cancer, craniospinal irradiation (CSI), total skin electron therapy (TSE), and total body irradiation (TBI). Describe your experience in working with Varian Aria/Eclipse/Variseed, Pinnacle, CMS Xio, Philips CT-LOC and AcQSim, Syntegra, Oncentra, and BrainLAB treatment planning systems. Describe you experience in setting up, maintaining, and troubleshooting a radiation oncology treatment planning and DICOM server.

Describe your experience in participation in clinical trials with NRG Oncology, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Children’s Oncology Group (COG), Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG), and/or other cancer cooperative groups. Describe your process for reviewing research protocols and preparing electronic data for the Oncology Protocol credentialing process. Describe specific clinical trial protocols you have been involved with and your style for supporting clinical trial staff, dosimetrists, clinicians, and therapists with these protocols.

VOLUME IV – COMPENSATION PLAN

Compensation Plan: Compensation plans shall be submitted for each specialty for the base period and each option period indicating the hourly rate. A sample compensation plan worksheet is included at Attachment 3.

VOLUME V – PRICING

The Offeror shall submit proposed pricing for all contract line item numbers identified in the solicitation on the Excel spreadsheet provided as Attachment 4. The Pricing Worksheet shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format with all formulas intact. Provide total pricing for the base period and each option period, as well as a grand total of the entire quote. Cost and Pricing Data is not required under competitive and commercial acquisitions; however, if only one proposal is received - Other than Certified Cost or Pricing data may be required.

(m) The Government will award a contract resulting from the solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

(End of Addendum to 52.212-1)

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

Paragraph (a) is hereby replaced with the following:

(a) Award will be made using the Best-Value Tradeoff source selection process. Technical Capabilities and Past Performance are of equal importance. When combined, Technical Capabilities and Past Performance are more important than Compensation Plan. When combined, Technical Capabilities, Past Performance, and Compensation Plan are more important than price. However, price could become the determining factor, if the quotes are determined to be essentially equal. The trade-off process could result in awarding to other than the low offeror. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation represents the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

(2) FACTOR 2 - TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES

(2) FACTOR 3 - COMPENSATION PLAN

(3) FACTOR 4 - PRICE

The Contracting Officer will review all proposals received to determine if they are responsive to the requirement. A responsive proposal is one that meets all of the terms, conditions and specifications in the solicitation. The Offeror must provide all documents listed and comply with all proposal instructions in order for their proposal to be considered “responsive” to the solicitation. Only responsive proposals will be evaluated for award.

The Contracting Officer will conduct an integrated assessment on responsive proposals received that comply with the instructions in the solicitation. Current and relevant information should be provided to assist the Government with the evaluation process. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms for technical capabilities, past performance, compensation plan, and price.

Award may be made without discussions with Offerors (except communications conducted for the purpose of minor clarification). Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a technical and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. When discussions/negotiations occur, each participating Offeror shall be given an opportunity to revise their proposal to reflect any changes that may have resulted from the discussions/negotiations. The Contracting Officer will award the contract to the Offeror offering the best value to the Government, based on either the initial or a revised proposal.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government evaluation process is as follows:

Step 1 – The Government will conduct a compliance review to determine if each Offeror met the submission requirements as outlined in 52.212-1 and Addendum to 52.212-1. If a proposal is found to be non-responsive no further consideration will be afforded to that proposal.

Step 2 – Once the Government has determined which proposals are responsive, only those proposals will continue with the evaluation process as outline below.

A phased approach will be utilized to evaluate responsive proposals. Factor 1 - Past Performance will be reviewed first; Factor 2 Technical Capabilities and Factor 3 Compensation Plan will be reviewed second, and Factor 4 – Price will be evaluated last. Contractors must demonstrate recent past performance (as defined below), receive a Recency rating of “Recent,” a Relevancy rating of “Relevant” or higher (as defined below), and receive a Confidence rating of “Satisfactory” or higher (as defined below) in order to move on to the Technical evaluation phase. If past performance does not meet the criteria described in this paragraph, the proposal may not receive further consideration.

FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE:

Provide three (3) PPIs and PPQs to verify YOUR company (the offeror) provided recent and relevant services either as the prime contractor or subcontractor. "Relevant" is defined as "for the same or similar services" based on the type and scope of services, and the technical complexities as compared to the same factors of the solicited requirement. "Recent" is defined as “within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation.” Past Performance must be with the Department of the Army, other US Government departments or agencies, state and local governments and/or private sector clients. You may also submit Past Performance for work performed by YOUR company (the offeror) as a subcontractor.

Work performed by a subsidiary company or sister company will not be considered. Past Performance references may be contacted. Narratives are required on questionnaires (PPQs) for ratings other than satisfactory. If the narratives do not support the rating or if there is no narrative for a rating higher than satisfactory, the questionnaire rating will be evaluated as satisfactory. Offerors are reminded that the government may elect to consider any additional past performance information that is available and obtained from other sources, to include the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and

CPARS.

In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be assessed a Neutral Confidence rating.

The Past Performance evaluation results in an integrated assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the requirements and the assignment of an overall rating based on consideration of the Offeror’s recent, relevant and quality past performance based on the Offeror’s submittals (PPI Sheets and PPQs) and other information.

Definitions

The following definitions will be utilized for the Performance Confidence Assessment determination:

(a) Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information contained in the Offeror’s submittals will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) Relevancy Assessment An assessment of the recent past performance information will be made to determine its relevancy. This information will be evaluated to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this requirement and assigned a rating.

Relevancy Ratings: The Government will use the following relevancy definitions/ratings when assessing relevant past performance:

Relevancy Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing the same or larger sized full-service team, providing the same services, in the same environment as the solicited requirement.)

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a slightly smaller sized full-service team, providing similar services in a similar environment as the solicited requirement.)

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a smaller full-service team, providing somewhat similar services in a similar environment as the solicited requirement.)

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a considerably smaller sized team that did not encompass full-service, or where the scope, magnitude and complexities are dissimilar to the solicited requirement.)

*Note: The parenthetical information above is provided as an example only and does not constitute all the factors the Government may consider when making a relevancy determination.

Confidence Ratings: The Government will use the following definitions/ratings when making an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA).

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Methods

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.

Neutral Confidence 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 successfully perform the required effort.

Evaluation Process

The overall PCA rating is based on an integrated assessment of the Offerors recent, relevant and quality past performance. The resulting PCA rating is determined at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent, relevant and quality past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

A PCA rating of Satisfactory Confidence or better must be obtained in order to be further considered in the evaluation process; proposals receiving a PCA rating lower than Satisfactory Confidence will be removed from consideration and no further evaluation will be conducted.

FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES

Factor 2. Technical Capability:

Ratings of an offeror’s proposal reflect the Government's confidence in each offeror's ability, as demonstrated in its proposal, to perform the requirements stated in the solicitation.

Staffing Plan: The elements of the Staffing Plan will be evaluated to ensure that the proposed plan is sufficient to staff and manage the Therapeutic Medical Physics Team in accordance with the requirements stated in the Performance Work Statement.

The following adjectival rating scheme for the recruitment and retention factor will be used:

Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable. The rating scheme is defined below:

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements; proposed team members exceed some of the minimum required qualifications; the proposed approach contains multiple strengths; risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements; proposed team members meet the required qualifications; the proposed approach contains at least one strength; risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement; proposed team members meet most of the required qualifications; the risk of unsuccessful performance is no less than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements; proposed team members meet few of the required qualifications; the risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red 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.

A proposal must receive a rating of Acceptable or better in order to be further considered in the evaluation process. If a proposal is rated marginal or unacceptable in any of the factors the proposal will be removed from consideration and no further evaluation will be conducted.

Technical Experience: The elements of the Technical Experience factor will be evaluated to ensure the contractor has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the contract in accordance with the Performance Work Statement.

The following adjectival rating scheme for the technical experience factor will be used: Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable. The rating scheme is defined below:

Color

Adjectival

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red 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.

A proposal must receive a rating of Acceptable or better in order to be further considered in the evaluation process. If a proposal is rated marginal or unacceptable in any of the factors the proposal will be removed from consideration and no further evaluation will be conducted.

FACTOR 3 – COMPENSATION PLAN

A compensation plan shall be submitted for the specialties reflected in this solicitation. The plan shall reflect compensation for the base period and each option period. A sample compensation plan worksheet is included at Attachment 3.

The proposed compensation plans will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention and its consistency with a total plan for compensation that is sufficient to attract and retain quality Health Care Providers (HCPs). This factor will be rated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable”.

A compensation plan for each of the four specialties will be required and will be rated individually as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable” and then an overall rating will be assigned for this factor. Any offer that receives a rating of less than “acceptable” on any of the four specialties compensation plans will be ineligible for award and will be rated “unacceptable” for the overall rating for this factor. Any compensation plan that is incomplete, does not show the breakdown of fringe benefits (or explanation if hiring independent contractors), or is not submitted with amounts as hourly (not annual) rates will be rated “unacceptable.”

If found unacceptable in any of the factors, the proposal will be removed from consideration and no further evaluation will be conducted.

Acceptable Rating - Based on Regional Health Contracting Office - Central’s market research, the proposed compensation is sufficient to attract and retain quality HCPs.

Unacceptable Rating – Based on Regional Health Contracting Office - Central’s market research, the proposed compensation to the HCP is not sufficient to attract and retain quality HCPs.

FACTOR 4 – PRICE:

Price Analysis will be conducted. Proposals will be evaluate for price reasonableness. The proposed price will be evaluated on the bottom line price for the entire effort, inclusive of all options. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Some of those techniques are, but not limited to, comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and/or comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate. Price must be determined fair and reasonable.

(c) 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 a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(d) Given that FAR 52.217-8 provides that the Government may exercise the Option to Extend Services at the rates specified in the contract (i.e., the rates in effect when the Extension of Services option is exercised), for purposes of evaluating the Option to Extend Services, the Contracting Officer will consider the prices submitted for the base year and each option year, since those are the binding prices should the Option to Extend be exercised.

(e) The award decision will be based on the best value offered to the Government and not solely on price and price related factors. In making the award decision, the Contracting Officer will consider the evaluated rating of all factors. Ratings of “not acceptable” will not be eligible for award.

END OF ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2