Medical Countermeasure Portfolio Combined Syn_Sol_03Aug23.pdf

03 August 2023

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS

FROM: U.S. Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground, Natick Division 1 General Greene Avenue Natick, MA 01760-5011

SUBJECT: Request for Proposal, W911QY-23-R-1022

A. INTRODUCTION:

The Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND), through Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG), Natick Division (ND) intends to establish a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract for high-level strategic support services to assist in achieving domestic and international medical portfolio program objectives.

General Information:

Notice Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation

Solicitation Number: W911QY-23-R-1022

Title: CBRND Countermeasures Portfolio Support

Posted Date: 03 Aug 2023

Question Due Date: 17 August 2023

Solicitation Response Date: 04 September 2023

Estimated Award Date: 04 December 2023

Set Aside: N/A

NAICS Code: 541611 – Administrative Management Consulting; Knowledge Based Services

Point of Contact: Dan Adams, dan.l.adams2.civ@army.mil, (508) 206-2040 Jason Papadopoulos, jason.g.papadopoulos.civ@army.mil, (508) 206-2073

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial products or commercial services prepared in accordance with the format in subpart 12.6, in conjunction with elements of FAR Part 15, and as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

The solicitation number is W911QY-23-R-1022 and this solicitation is hereby issued as a Request for Proposal (RFP). This solicitation, including any attachments, may be downloaded from SAM.gov at website SAM.gov. The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2023-01 effective 1 December 2022.

This solicitation will be competed using Full and Open competition. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this solicitation is 541611 – Administrative Management Consulting; Knowledge Based Services, with a size standard of $21.5M.

This written solicitation is issued in accordance with the FAR Subpart 12.603(b) – Streamlined Solicitation for Commercial Items. A Standard Form 1449 (Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items) will not be used for mailto:dan.l.adams2.civ@army.mil mailto:jason.g.papadopoulos.civ@army.mil issuing this solicitation; however, the Government anticipates awarding a single Five Year Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract from this solicitation using the SF1449.

The Government anticipates award will be made to the “responsible” Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government, based on the results of a complete and thorough Government evaluation of proposals in accordance with (IAW) the evaluation criteria set forth herein. (See FAR Subpart 9.104 for a description of the standards prospective contractors must meet to be determined “responsible”.) The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract with discussions. The Government also reserves the right to not award any contract in the event that no proposals are considered to be in the best interest of the Government.

FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TIMELY PROPOSAL EXACTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBMISSION

INSTRUCTIONS MAY RESULT INTHE OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL BEING REJECTED AS UNACCEPTABLE

OR NONCOMPLIANT, AND THEREFORE INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD CONSIDERATION.

Attachments to this Combined Synopsis/Solicitation:

1. Statement of Objectives (SOO) JPEO-Countermeasure Portfolio Support

2. Pricing Worksheet

3. Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet

Exhibits to this Combined Synopsis/Solicitation:

1. Exhibit A – Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs)

B. ADDENDI / PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS:

The following Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items (Nov 2021) is hereby included:

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. Formatting. Proposals shall be submitted electronically as an email attachment (attachment size limit 20MB). For written sections of the proposal, all margins shall be 1 inch, text single spaced, 12-point Arial or New Times Roman font. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode. The proposal shall include a Table of Contents, and all pages shall be numbered. Cost proposal shall include price breakdown information in Excel format.

b. Content. Proposals shall consist of the following six Volumes:

VOLUME TITLE FILE NAME MAX

PAGES

FILE

FORMAT

1 Technical (Technical approach to tasks in the base IDIQ) xxTechnicalxx 25 pdf

1a Medical Countermeasure Development Brief xxMCM_DevelopmentBriefxx 30 slides pptx

1b International Office Addresses xxInternationalOfficesxx No limit docx, xlsx, or pdf

2 Past Performance xxPastPerformancexx 5 pdf

3 Cost/Price xxPricexx No Limit xlsx

4 Small Business Participation xxSmallBusinessxx No Limit pdf

5 Administration xxAdministrativexx 10 pdf

Page count for the Technical volume includes Table of Contents.

Each volume shall be submitted as an individual electronic file labeled with the volume title as shown above. Example of an acceptable file name: AcmePastPerformance20220101 or similar, replacing “xx” with the Offeror’s name and the date of the proposal. Do not use periods (.) in any file name as they will be rejected by the government systems.

All material submitted shall be unclassified.

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the government.

2. VOLUME DESCRIPTION

a. VOLUME 1 – Technical. The volume shall describe the offeror’s technical approach to the Statement of Objective (SOO) Tasks and associated Sub-Tasks in the base IDIQ. The following points must be addressed:

(1) Portfolio Strategy, Management, and Communications. The government will evaluate the offeror’s strategy for providing guidance in the maturation of its CBRN defense countermeasure portfolio, and the selection and shepherding of candidate countermeasures toward needs of the broader Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP, https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/cbd/index.html), national-level, and Department of Defense (DoD)-level CBRND strategies. JPEO-CBRND will consider the offeror’s understanding of CBDP program objectives, the feasibility and likelihood for success of their proposed strategy, and their ability to effectively communicate program strategy to stakeholders and senior leaders (White House, DoD, and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)).

The government will evaluate the offeror’s strategy for assisting the JPEO-CBRND as it works to achieve best business practices in the execution of its mission.

(2) CBRN Defense Community Alignment. The government will evaluate the offeror’s strategy for aligning its CBRN defense countermeasure portfolio program objectives with those of the national and international CBRND communities. JPEO-CBRND will consider the offeror’s understanding of the CBRN defense countermeasure programs of national and international CBRN defense community members, the offeror’s proposed approach to applying best practices from industry to the JPEO-CBRND portfolio management, and the feasibility and likelihood for success of their proposed alignment strategy.

(3) Relevant Experience. Relevant experience describes the history of tasks/projects related to the present requirement which the offeror has completed successfully, and which serve to shape the offeror’s knowledge and capabilities in a way that makes them able to meet the present requirement more fully. Offeror should describe all relevant experience, including both United States Government (USG) contracts and non-USG efforts, along with their outcomes and impacts. For projects related to the present requirement that the offeror is currently working, or has completed successfully in the past, please provide the following information:

• The offeror shall describe the complexity and impact of a strategy for a global health project completed by the offeror, considering how the offeror’s international presence and network of relationships with the local health and regulatory agencies contributed to the success of the project.

• The offeror shall describe the size and impact of the its contribution to the development of a drug or biologic, considering how the offeror’s knowledge and manipulation of the following contributed to the success of the project: 1) science and technology on which the drug or biologic is based, 2) manufacturing process to produce final drug product, and 3) process by which clinical efficacy and safety were demonstrated through the U.S. Food and Drug Agency (FDA) regulatory process.

• The offeror shall describe the extent and depth of its working relationships with U.S. CBRN community partners. The offeror shall provide details on working relationships with U.S. CBRN defense community partners. Community partners include Defense Threat Reduction Agency – Joint Science and Technology Office (DTRA-JSTO), Departments of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DHHS/Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and the Service branches.

(4) Other information. In addition, the Technical volume shall include the following information:

• The offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of the appropriate level of education, experience, sophistication, and subject matter expertise of the personnel/teams that are required for successful completion of the tasks. JPEO-CBRND anticipates that key government-facing personnel assigned to this requirement may include Senior Leaders with experience in 1) shaping strategy in the public sector,

2) DoD acquisition processes, particularly in CBRN defense, and 3) defense strategy. As indicated in the SOO, Section 1.2 Scope, JPEO-CBRND also anticipates that subject matter experts from a wide spectrum of career fields will be necessary to support the government-facing team. Accordingly,

– the offeror shall describe the career fields of key government-facing personnel to be assigned to assist the JPEO-CBRND, including non-generic resumes for these individuals (resumes are not included in the 25 page count limit for Volume 1);

– the offeror shall describe the career fields of the subject matter experts who will be accessible by reach back, who are considered essential to enabling the offeror to complete all Tasks.

• The offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of 1) the international CBRN threat landscape, 2) ongoing international CBRN defense countermeasure programs to combat those CBRN threats, and 3) understanding of best practices for countermeasure portfolio management.

• The offeror shall present evidence of experience and training working in an environment involving application of USG and industry processes to development of countermeasures in the highest levels of government, including White House and senior DoD and DHHS leadership.

• The offeror shall demonstrate the capability to respond rapidly to quick-turn taskers—often within 48 hours—with appropriate personnel and subject matter expertise.

b. VOLUME 1a – Medical Countermeasure Development Brief (Sample Task). For this Volume, the offeror shall provide a PowerPoint slide deck brief on a proposed medical countermeasure for a biological warfare agent program with one of the following partners: Australia, Canada, or New Zealand. The slide deck will identify by address the in-country office that has physical presences with the country selected for the proposed co-development. The slide deck shall describe and depict DoD’s acquisition and FDA’s drug developmental and approval process and align it with partner nation’s acquisition and regulatory drug developmental and approval process, with considerations to best industry practices. The unclassified slide deck shall identify the biothreat and justify why it is a pathogen of concern, proposed cost and schedule, risks, and highlight differences between the US and partner nation’s acquisition and regulatory process and recommendations on how cooperation could accelerate efforts for both parties. The slide deck shall address the national strategic documents the threat addresses and how it supports the National Biodefense Strategy.

The slide deck shall propose a funding plan based on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process aligned with entry point into DoD acquisition process. Use of graphics should complement the text and add contextual relevance. The presentation slide deck shall not exceed 30 slides.

c. VOLUME 1b – International Office Addresses. For this Volume, the offeror shall provide a list of physical addresses for their international offices. In particular, offeror shall include a list of their offices in the Five Eyes countries (U.S. headquarters only, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia), Israel, and any NATO alliance countries in which the offeror has offices.

d. VOLUME 2 – Past Performance. In this volume, the offeror shall list prior government contracts, including contract number and period of performance, for contracts similar in scope to the present requirement. Offeror should not include a description of the effort in this section – all description of Relevant Experience should be limited to Volume 1, Section (3) Relevant Experience. The information in this volume (Volume 2) will be used by USG to evaluate the offeror’s past performance on USG contracts as detailed in USG’s contract management system, e.g. data contained within Surveillance and Performance Monitoring (SPM) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

e. VOLUME 3 – Cost/Price. The volume shall include the offeror’s proposal for costs associated with supporting the JPEO-CBRND for the SOO Tasks and associated Sub-Tasks.

(1) Electronic Copy. Files contained in Volume 3 may not be password protected. Electronic links are only permissible within the Cost Volume. If files contain links, the links must be intact and maintained through all revisions. The offeror shall not include pivot tables in Excel spreadsheets.

(2) Compliance. Failure to comply with the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements for Cost information may result in an adverse assessment of an offeror’s proposal and reduce or eliminate its chance of being selected for award. Offerors shall ensure that the information presented in this volume is consistent and correlates with the information contained in the other proposal volumes. Also, the offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the SF33 and continuation sheets.

(3) General Instructions. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.402 and 15.403-1, certified cost or pricing data are not required based on the fact that adequate competition is expected for this procurement. Information other than certified cost or pricing data may be provided in contractor format providing that sufficient information is made available. Information submitted shall be prepared following the instruction in FAR 15.403-5. If after receipt of proposals the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions at FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror may be required to submit cost or pricing data.

Additionally, in the event that adequate competition is not obtained, the Contracting Officer may incorporate FAR 52.215-20 entitled, “Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data,” into the solicitation and request a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data.

There are no page limitations for this volume. Proposal information included in this volume which is not directly related to Cost will be disregarded.

(4) Price Model. As part of this volume, the Offeror shall include a completed Pricing Proposal. Offerors are asked to utilize and complete the proposal format used in the RFP Attachment 04 – Pricing Worksheet. Price models must be signed by an official having the authority to bind the firm contractually. If this person is not an officer of the company, the offer shall be accompanied by written evidence of the individual’s authority to bind the company.

f. VOLUME 4 – Small Business Participation. The volume shall include the offeror’s plan for small business participation.

(1) Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet. All offerors (both U.S. small business and other than U.S. small businesses) shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet with their proposal as a separate document (xxxxSBPCDxxxx.xlsx) in order to identify the extent to which U.S. small businesses will participate in the performance of the proposed acquisition relative to the government's small business objectives. Offerors are required to utilize and complete the proposal format depicted in the RFP Attachment 05 - Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet. The offeror’s proposed Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet will be incorporated as an attachment in the awarded contract to reflect the contract’s minimum contractual requirements in terms of Small Business Participation. Other than U.S.

small businesses may achieve their proposed level of small business participation through subcontracting to small businesses. Small businesses may achieve their proposed level of small business participation through their own performance/participation as a prime and through a joint venture, teaming arrangement, and subcontracting to other small businesses; small businesses are not required to subcontract to other small businesses in order to achieve their proposed level of small business participation. Non-U.S. based subcontracts are NOT exempt from the total contract value for the purpose of the Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet calculations. For any enforceable commitments to small businesses proposed (e.g. written teaming agreements bilaterally signed, joint venture, mentor-protégé), all offerors are also required to provide copies of such commitments; these will not count against the page limitation for this volume.

It is the government’s expectation that the offeror will meet or exceed their proposed level of small business participation during contract performance. Failure to meet or exceed proposed level of small business participation, or fall within 5% of proposed level of small business participation on the contract, may result in negative Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings and/or contract default procedures.

(2) Small Business Participation Commitment Document. All offerors (both U.S. small businesses and other than U.S. small businesses) are required to submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document with their proposal as a separate document (xxxxSBPCDxxxx.docx; or PDF) in order to support their proposed level of small business participation within the Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet.

Within the Small Business Participation Commitment Document, all offerors (both U.S. small businesses and other than U.S. small businesses) shall provide a detailed explanation of the methodology utilized to determine the proposed level of small business participation for each small business socioeconomic category (Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business, Veteran Owed Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business) within the Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet. If the proposed level of small business participation is $0/0% for any category, offerors shall provide rationale as to why there are no subcontracting opportunities in that category for this acquisition. Offerors shall provide copies of all supporting documentation utilized in the aforementioned methodology (e.g. including, but not limited to, Compliance Documentation on prior government contracts IAW FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns, SF 294s and SF 295s, electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) Individual Subcontract Reports, Summary Subcontract Reports, Annual Company-Wide Subcontracting Achievement Documentation, DD 1423s for Small Business Participation on prior government contracts).

Within the Small Business Participation Commitment Document, all offerors (both U.S. small businesses and other than U.S. small businesses) shall provide supporting documentation as evidence of compliance with small business participation/ subcontracting requirements on previous government contracts completed within the past three (3) fiscal years. It is the government’s expectation that the offeror will provide evidence of compliance with the following:

FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns. Applicable information relating to compliance with FAR 52.219-8 shall include the contract number, as well as a description and available supporting documentation submitted to the Contracting Officer of the methods employed to promote small business utilization and the internal methods used to monitor such utilization for each contract cited.

FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Applicable information relating to compliance with FAR 52.219-9 shall include SF 294s and/or eSRS Individual Subcontract Reports submitted to the Contracting Officer for each contract cited. If the offeror failed to meet any goal within their plan, the offeror shall include an explanation with its narrative for each contract cited.

Small Business Participation IAW DFARS 215.304. Applicable information relating to compliance with Small Business Participation shall include at a minimum a description and available supporting documentation submitted to the Contracting Officer of each contract number, the total contract value, the proposed level of small business participation in each small business socioeconomic category (total dollars proposed and percentage proposed based on total contract value), and the achieved level of small business participation in each small business socioeconomic category (total dollars achieved and percentage based on total contract value). If an offeror has not been subject to the requirements of FAR Part 19, including never holding a contract incorporating FAR 52.219-8, FAR 52.219-9, or Small Business Participation minimum contractual requirements (DFARS 215.304), the offeror’s proposal shall include a statement to that effect and a rationale as to why.

(3) Small Business Subcontracting Plan. All other than U.S. small business offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan with their proposal as a separate document. The small businesses identified in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document Worksheet shall be listed in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted pursuant to FAR 52.219-9 to facilitate compliance with DFARS 252.219-7003. The offeror’s proposed small business subcontracting goals in their plan shall be based on both the total subcontracting dollars as well as the total contract value. The goals shall be specific to this contract and shall be “stretch” goals that are equal to or greater than the proposed level of small business participation proposed in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document

Worksheet described in paragraph 1. above within this volume. The goals shall be realistic and challenging reflecting the offeror’s best efforts for each small business socioeconomic category. The goals must not be inflated in order to create a favorable, but false impression. The goals must not be understated in order to easily accomplish goal achievement without providing maximum practicable opportunities. The offeror’s proposed small business subcontracting goals will be incorporated as an attachment in the awarded contract.

It is the government’s expectation that the proposed goals will be sought with good faith effort. Failure to meet or exceed proposed goals without sufficient justification in terms of the good faith efforts applied may result in the offeror paying liquidated damages to the government IAW FAR 52.219‐16 “Liquidated Damages – Subcontracting Plan.” Offerors should thereby note that this is distinctly different than the expectations relative to the small business.

(End of Addendum)

The following Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021) is hereby included:

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the government, with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, Cost/Price, and Small Business Participation. The most important of these factors, Technical, will be evaluated based on the offeror’s technical approach in response to tasks described in the base IDIQ; relevant experience with similar efforts; response to a sample task (Countermeasure Development Brief); and the extent of the offeror’s physical international presence. The Technical factor is the most important factor. Within the Technical factor, Technical Subfactors 5 and 6 are equal and are the most important Technical Subfactors; Technical Subfactors 1 through 4 are equal, and are the second most important Technical Subfactors; Technical Subfactor 7 is the least important Technical Subfactor. The Technical factor, i.e. each of the seven Technical subfactors, is more important than the Past Performance factor, which is more important than the Small Business Participation factor, which is more important than the Cost/Price factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Good” must be achieved for the Technical factors and subfactors. To be eligible for award, the offeror must receive a Past Performance rating of “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence.” Additionally, any other than small business offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.702(a). Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT

THAN COST/PRICE.

2. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

a. Factor 1: Technical: Each offeror’s technical solution will be evaluated as described below. Subfactors 1 through 5 apply to VOLUME 1 – Technical (file xxTechnicalxx); Subfactor 6 applies to VOLUME 1a – Medical Countermeasure Development Brief (file xxMCM_DevelopmentBriefxx); and Subfactor 7 applies to VOLUME 1b – International Office Addresses (file xxInternationalOfficesxx).

– Subfactor 1. Task and Sub-Task solution. Fit and feasibility of the offeror’s solutions to each of the Tasks and Sub-Tasks outlined in the SOO will be evaluated. Evaluation will include assessment of the offeror’s understanding of the requirement through its proposed mix and quantity of career fields of those assigned to the requirement, including the government-facing team, as well as the breadth and depth of subject matter expertise to support the government-facing team.

– Subfactor 2. Portfolio Strategy, Management, and Communications. Offeror shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of technical aspects of the function and development of both medical and physical CBRN defense countermeasures and application to portfolio management; that understanding will be evaluated with respect to the offeror’s strategy for maintenance and maturity of JPEO-CBRND’s CBRN defense countermeasure portfolio. Offeror shall demonstrate mastery of communications materials in all written and verbal formats appropriate for the highest levels of government.

– Subfactor 3. CBRN Defense Community Alignment. Offeror shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of CBRN threats globally, ongoing CBRN defense countermeasure programs intended to prevent/treat exposure to them, and strategies/unified approaches the international CBRN defense community maintains or is developing to respond to them.

– Subfactor 4. Business Strategy and Innovation. Offeror shall demonstrate extensive mastery of business strategy development, advising, and implementation support for large businesses. In particular, business strategies described must be applicable to management and innovation within the business sectors relevant to the current requirement.

– Subfactor 5. Relevant Experience. The offeror shall describe relevant experience that is directly related to the present requirement. The experiences, successes, and impacts detailed in the proposal shall demonstrate 1) the offeror’s contribution to a highly complex global health project, and how their international presence and network of relationships with the local health and regulatory agencies contributed to the success of the project; 2) the offeror’s contribution to the development of a drug or biologic, articulating expertise and industry best practices in assessing, evaluating, and formulating courses of action; providing recommendations on medical portfolio management and medical countermeasure development; demonstrating experience with regulatory review, drug and biologic technologies, and manufacturing processes; and interdependencies of various pipeline stages (US and abroad); and 3) the extent and depth of the offeror’s working relationships with U.S. CBRN defense community partners, including DTRA-JSTO, DHHS, DHS, BARDA, and the Services branches (Army, Navy, Air Force).

– Subfactor 6. Medical Countermeasure Development Brief. Offeror shall articulate the need to address a biothreat, including a rationale and justification to prioritize development of a particular candidate or candidates against that biothreat; provide considerations to manage a portfolio of medical countermeasure candidates; nest under relevant DoD and National guidances; identify areas for coordination between US CBRN defense stakeholders and the partner nation (Australia, Canada, or New Zealand); identify common areas of risk; and coalesce these into a comprehensive strategy for managing medical countermeasure development from threat identification through countermeasure acquisition.

– Subfactor 7. International Office Addresses. The contractor shall provide a list of physical addresses for their international offices. In particular, offeror shall include a list of their offices in the Five Eyes countries (U.S. headquarters only, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia), Israel, and any NATO alliance countries in which the offeror has offices. Because it is not possible to predict all of the countries JPEO-CBRND will require on-the-ground monitoring, evaluation, and analysis of CBRND activities (e.g. emerging regional threats, medical countermeasure development efforts, in-country health agency concerns and mandates, etc.) over the five year period of performance of this contract, a contractor with a more extensive international physical presence is sought.

b. Factor 2: Past Performance: Evaluation of the offeror’s Past Performance on government contracts will be evaluated. Evaluation will include an analysis of 1) how similar the prior contract efforts were to the present requirement, and 2) the quality of performance provided under the proposed efforts. . During evaluation of each proposal, the government will assign the Past Performance an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

c. Factor 3: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort. Price reasonableness will be determined

IAW FAR 15.404-1.

d. Factor 4. Small Business Participation: Each offeror’s level and degree of commitment to utilize small business in execution of the requirement will be evaluated. Offerors that include small businesses as subcontractors (for well-defined sub-tasks) will be evaluated favorably.

3. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

a. Technical Factor. The government will evaluate the offeror’s technical proposal for adequacy of the response and feasibility of the approach.

(1) Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

(2) Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below).

This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1 COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

b. Past Performance Factor. The government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required Tasks in the SOO.

(1) The government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. For the purposes of this SSP/Requirement, major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 10 percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 541611.

(2) Offerors shall submit three to five government and/or commercial contracts performed within the last three years for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

(3) The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

– RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For this requirement, efforts performed within the last 3 years, from the issue date of this RFP, will be deemed recent.

Contracts not performed within the last 3 years, from the issue date of the RFP, will be deemed not recent and will not be further evaluated.

– RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated;

however, the following criteria (see Table 2) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

– QUALITY: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance.

Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(4) Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 3 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

c. Cost/Price Factor. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Cost/Price proposals. The government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs)/ordering periods for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum contract value or contract ceiling. The evaluation of all option CLINs/ordering periods will not obligate the government to exercise any options or place more than the minimum order. The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated as follows:

(1) FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

(2) Overall Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

– Compliance: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L-2.c. VOLUME 3 – Cost/Price instructions.

– Unbalanced Pricing: The offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

– Errors: The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

– Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the offeror’s proposed CLIN prices.

d. Small Business Participation Factor. IAW Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.304(c)(i), the extent to which offeror’s identify and commit to small business performance of the contract shall be evaluated.

Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) which specifies the offeror’s level and degree of commitment to small business utilization/ participation in performance of this requirement. An SBPCD is required from all offerors, including companies with commercial plans and comprehensive subcontracting plans. The government will evaluate the following:

(1) The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals;

(2) The extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

(3) The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

For purposes of this requirement, total contract value is defined as the cumulative value of task order awards received that have opportunities to utilize small business concerns throughout the life of the contract. All offerors are required to submit Small Business Participation Commitment Documents in accordance with the instructions in Section L. Small business participation commitments will become requirements and be incorporated into the resulting contract.

The contractor shall report actual achievement of small business participation results on an annual basis and shall discuss performance in achieving the small business commitments/requirements.

Small business utilization metrics/performance requirements are specified in the Performance Requirements Summary of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.

TABLE 4 – Small Business Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

(End of Addendum)

C. CLAUSES/PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

FAR 52.203-3, Gratuities (Apr 1984) FAR 52.203-11, Certification And Disclosure Regarding Payments To Influence Certain Federal Transactions (Sep 2007) FAR 52.203-12, Limitation on Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions (Jun 2020) FAR 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (Nov 2021) FAR 52.203-15, Whistleblower Protections Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Jun 2010) FAR 52.203-19, Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements (Jan 2017) FAR 52.204-2, Security Requirements (Mar 2021) FAR 52.204-7, System for Award Management (Oct 2018) FAR 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel (Jan 2011) FAR 52.204-13, System for Award Management Maintenance (Oct 2018) FAR 52.204-15, Service Contract Reporting Requirements For Indefinite-Delivery Contracts (Oct 2016) FAR 52.201-16, Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting (Aug 2020) FAR 52.204-17, Ownership or Control of Offeror (Aug 2020) FAR 52.204-18, Commercial and Government Entity Code Maintenance (Aug 2020) FAR 52.204-20, Predecessor of Offeror (Aug 2020) FAR 52.204-21, Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems (Nov 2021) FAR 52.204-23, Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab and Other Covered Entities (Nov 2021) FAR 52.204-24, Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment (Nov 2021) FAR 52.204-25, Prohibition of Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment (Nov 2021) FAR 52.204-26, Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services--Representation (Oct 2020) FAR 52.209-7, Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (Oct 2018) FAR 52.209-10, Prohibition on Contracting With Inverted Domestic Corporations (Nov 2015) FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021) FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications--Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Dec 2022) FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions--Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Dec 2022) FAR 52.227-1, Authorization and Consent (Jun 2020) – Alternate I (Apr 1984) FAR 52.227-2, Notice and Assistance Regarding Patent and Copyright Infringement (Jun 2020) FAR 52.227-3, Patent Indemnity (Apr 1984) – Alternate II (Apr 1984) FAR 52.227-11, Patent Rights-Ownership by the Contractor (May 2014) FAR 52.232-39, Unenforceability of Unauthorized Obligations (Jun 2013) FAR 52.232-40, Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors (Nov 2021) FAR 52.233-1, Disputes (May 2014) FAR 52.233-3, Protest after Award (Aug 1996) FAR 52.233-4, Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim (Oct 2004) FAR 52.252-1, Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference (Feb 1998) FAR 52.252-2, Clauses Incorporated by Reference (Feb 1998) DFARS 252.201-7000, Contracting Officer’s Representative DFARS 252.203-7000, Requirements Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials (Sep 2022) DFARS 252.203-7002, Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights (Sep 2013) DFARS 252.203-7005, Representation Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials (Sep 2022) DFARS 252.204-7003, Control of Government Personnel Work Product (Apr 1992) DFARS 252.204-7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors (May 2016) DFARS 252.204-7015, Notice of Authorized Disclosure of Information for Litigation Support (May 2016)

DFARS 252.204-7016, Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services--Representation (Dec 2019 DFARS 252.204-7017, Prohibition on the Acquisition of Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services--Representation (May 2021) DFARS 252.204-7018, Prohibition on the Acquisition of Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services (Jan 2021) DFARS 252.204-7019, Notice of NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements (Mar 2022) DFARS 252.204-7020, NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements (Mar 2022) DFARS 252.204-7023, Reporting Requirements for Contracted Services-Basic (Jul 2021) DFARS 252.215-7008, Only One Offer (Jul 2019) DFARS 252.215-7016, Notification to Offerors--Postaward Debriefings (Mar 2022) DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts) – (Dec 2019) DFARS 252.225-7048, Export-Controlled Items (Jun 2013) DFARS 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data—Other Than Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Mar 2023) DFARS 252.227-7014, Rights in Other Than Commercial Computer Software and Other Than Commercial Computer Software Documentation (Mar 2023) DFARS 252.227-7015, Technical Data - Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Mar 2023) DFARS 252.227-7016, Rights in Bid or Proposal Information (Jan 2023) DFARS 252.227-7017, Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions (Jan…