Source_Selection_Plan_Montana_State_Lab_2018_(003).doc

COVER PAGE

SOURCE SELECTION PLAN

See FAR 3.104

This document contains source selection information related to the conduct of a Federal agency procurement, the disclosure of which is restricted by Section 27 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 423). The unauthorized disclosure of such information may subject both the discloser and recipient of the information to contractual, civil, and/or criminal penalties as provided by law.

Source Selection Plan

Request for Quotation: Specialty Laboratory Testing Laboratory Department Blackfeet Service Unit, Browning, Montana USPHS-Department of Health & Human Service

Indian Health Service

Billings Area Indian Health Service

Property & Supply 760 Hospital Circle Browning, Montana 59417

a. Description of the Effort: Blackfeet Community Hospital requires certain types of specialty patient testing that cannot be performed in house. These tests require timely processing and are required by State Law. For example, each state requires PKU testing on all infants. Other test such as, Acid-Fast Bacillis, Neisseria gonorrhea, ova and parasites, viral cultures, etc. must be tested in a timely manner for accurate results. Blackfeet Service Unit also participates in the CDC’s Chlamydia project; which allows the project to return drugs used for treatment back to the Blackfeet Service Unit. This contract would allow for this testing to continue

b. Project background. This acquisition is to allow for the Blackfeet Service Unit to send out patient samples for various types of ordered laboratory testing. This is a continued acquisition. The period of performance will be from Date of Award to December 31, 2019.

1. Acquisition Strategy. The Government intends to award a single firm fixed-price delivery order for this acquisition. The acquisition and source selection are being conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8, Required Sources of Supplies and Services; FAR 37.4, Non personal Health Care Services Contract (41 U.S.C. Chapter 33); FAR 15.101, Best Value Continuum; and Subpart 15.3, Source Selection.

2. Source Selection Authority (SSA): The SSA for this procurement is Jerry Black, Contracting Officer, Billings Area Indian Health Service, Billings , Montana.

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

4.1 Company ability to perform specific specialty laboratory testing required by Blackfeet Service Unit = 35 Points. Potential contractors must submit documentation of lab testing capabilities/menu.

4.2 Contract lab to report results to the Blackfeet Service Unit as well as the State of Montana = 35 Points.

4.3 Company Past Performance = 30 Points. The Company must demonstrate its record of successful performance in past contracts and/or jobs, Government and/or commercial. Each offeror will be evaluated on its performance under existing and prior contracts/jobs. The offeror must list at least three contracts/jobs and include the following information. (1) Name of Government agency/Company; (2) Contract number, if applicable; (3) Dates of Service/Employment; (4) Total contract value/Hourly wage; (5) Description of contract work/Job duties; (6) Contracting Officer/Company Manager and telephone number; (7) Program Manager and telephone number, if applicable.

4. Evaluation Methodology: The Department Supervisor or Acting, will evaluate the quotations. The quotations shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria and relative weights set forth in the solicitation. The evaluator will read each quotation and describe, in writing, the strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies identified to support the scores given to each quotation. The numerical scores will be consistent with the evaluator’s written narratives; i.e., a high score should be supported by a narrative identifying a significant number of strengths and a minimum number of weaknesses. Any quotation that is unrealistic, in terms of technical approach, schedule commitments, and or costs (high or low) will be deemed unacceptable. The evaluators will use an adjective rating scale of 1 through 0 as follows:

Exceptional

1.0

Good

.8

Acceptable

.6

Marginal

.2

Unacceptable

.0

The adjectival ratings require narrative statements to support the determination. The definitions listed below should be used in the narratives to justify the scores given.

· A significant strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

· A strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

· A weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· A deficiency is defined as an aspect of the proposal that fails to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

5. Basis for Award: Selection of the successful offeror will be made based on the evaluation criteria. The quotations will be evaluated and a contract awarded under the Best Value Continuum approach to permit tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors. This will allow the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror who meets or exceeds the technical acceptability standards established in the factors referenced above. Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

7.

Source Selection Decision. In order to determine which offeror represents the best value to the government, the source selection authority will rank the offerors from best to worst. This will be accomplished by making a series of paired comparisons among the offerors by trading off the marginal differences in non-cost/price factors and price. If one offeror has both the better capability and lower price, then that offeror will be the better value. If one offeror has the better capability and a higher price, the source selection authority will decide whether the difference in capability is worth the difference in price. If the source selection authority considers the better capability to be worth the higher price, then the more capable, higher-priced offeror will be the better value. If not, then the less capable, lower-priced offeror will be the better value. The source selection authority will continue to make paired comparisons until she has decided which offeror represents the best value.