DRAFT Virtual Bookstore Statement of Objectives 10APR2024.pdf

DR

AF

T

USU Virtual Bookstore Services (Statement of Objectives, Technical Evaluation Criteria)

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (SOO)

I. Purpose USU is seeking a single entity to provide virtual bookstore services (hard copy textbooks, ebooks, medical journals and subscriptions, etc.) to support USU requirements. Independently, and not as an agent of the Government, offerors shall propose a clear, comprehensive and concise Performance Work Statement (PWS) and succinct Quality Assurance Plan (QASP) for providing virtual bookstore services and surveillance of the most critical aspects of contractor performance.

II. Scope of Mission The mission of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USU) is to educate, train, and comprehensively prepare uniformed services health professionals, scientists, and leaders to support the Military and Public Health Systems, the National Security and National Defense Strategies of the United States, and the readiness of our Uniformed Services.

The University consists of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine (SOM), the Office of Graduate Education (GEO), the Daniel K. Inouye Graduate School of Nursing (GSN), the Postgraduate Dental College (PGDC), and the College of Allied Health Sciences. The University also has a Learning Resource Center (LRC) on the main campus located in Bethesda, Maryland.

(a) School of Medicine (SOM)

● Typically enrolls between 175-180 new students each year

● Curriculum spans four years so the total average medical student enrollment is about

720 students per year.

● The medical student curriculum awards course credits as students progress through the curriculum, but it is successful completion of all the required curricular content that determines eligibility for graduation--not the total number of credit hours earned.

● Books are issued to each incoming Class of students in early August and include all the textbooks that will be required during the course of their 4 year curriculum. Although some titles change each year, roughly 85% of the core texts remain constant (aside from edition updates) from year to year.

(b) Learning Resource Center (LRC)

● Collections include journals & books (online & hardcopy), databases, and other online tools.

● Some collections include ClinicalKey, Ebook Central, EBSCO, LWW Health Library, R2

Library, and Stat!Ref

(c) Graduate School of Nursing (GSN)

● The GSN enrolls between 50 and 80 students per year in five different specialty programs (all are considered Advanced Practice RNs): Family Nurse Practitioner;

Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner; Women's Health Nurse Practitioner;

T

Registered Nurse Anesthetist; and Adult Gerontology Clinical Nurse Specialist with a Perioperative focus.

● The GSN has a PhD in Nursing Science program. Students are enrolled for 3-4 years and have some core books and specialty books, depending on their area of study.

● Books are issued to each incoming class of students in late April and include most of the textbooks that will be required during the course of their study (3 years for the APRN, 3-4 years for PhD).

Each of these component schools, colleges and centers has unique requirements for texts (paper and electronic) and other academic resources (e.g. journals and subscriptions). Therefore, USU is looking for an offeror that can provide flexible solutions to meet differing requirements, various schedules, and that can readily adapt to unforeseen circumstances for these schools specifically, but for USU as a whole.

III. Period and place of performance The Government anticipates a 5 year period of performance. Place of performance is virtual, but the USU main campus is in Bethesda, MD.

IV. Background Under the current process, each individual school, center, office and/or division submits orders for textbooks separately, either via a Government Purchase Card (GPC) or a Purchase Order processed by the Acquisitions Directorate (ACQ). Ordered materials are received and distributed by USU staff in various ways and sometimes get misplaced. USU is looking for an offeror who can comprehensively streamline and expedite this process. Representative sample requirements

(estimated quantities can range from 1 to 300 copies) are included below.

V. Performance Objectives

Virtual Bookstore services must address the following performance objectives (listed in descending order of importance):

(a) Ordering, tracking, delivering (and potentially distributing larger orders on-site) textbooks in any requested combination of hardcopy and/or electronic format.

(b) A full range of delivery alternatives based upon types of orders - from digital materials to large quantity orders, to individualized sets of books for each student. (All deliveries must go through the LOGISTICS loading dock).

(c) Receive orders of varying quantities (e.g. “bulk orders” to single copies or subscriptions) from different designated University customer POCs (e.g. SOM, GSN, LRC) throughout the year, so as to meet the scheduling requirements of the varying academic calendars.

(d) Book and subscription order placement in a web-based “cart/checkout” process that allows orders only from designated USU staff to be placed in a virtual “cart”, and approved for purchase at “check-out” ONLY by authorized USU staff.

(e) Ordering process must allow for a coordinated clearinghouse where all designated USU orders are visible and possibly highlighted to avoid duplication and ensure ordered quantities are sufficient to meet requirements across the University.

(f) Clearly defined lead time requirements for various sizes and types of orders and contingency plans and timeliness of customer notification(s) – not only for routine orders, but particularly

T in the event the vendor’s in-house supply of a required book is insufficient to meet the requirement or is temporarily out of stock.

(g) Ability for status of orders query to comprehensively see the status of an order anytime in the process including, but not limited to order placement, shipping, delivery and receipt as well as when books are back-ordered, are out of print, order history, etc.

(h) Provide sourcing assistance when necessary (e.g. locating out-of-print materials, back-issues, etc.).

(i) Provide training on all processes (ordering, status tracking, delivery, returns, etc.).

(j) Provide customer support generally via phone and web-based means with possible on-site support as needed.

(k) All digital materials must clearly identify: (1) all available licensing models (named-user versus site/institutional access; multi-user versus unlimited user), (2) the target user base

(department-specific versus University-wide) and (3) procurement options that best fit USU needs for any given title. Must coordinate with the requesting University customer to facilitate access via applicable methods (e.g. username/password, IP authentication, etc.).

(l) Ensure refund and exchange policies are clearly detailed.

VI. Any operating constraints

USU anticipates the award of an IDIQ-type contract or BPA with Firm-Fixed price orders; however, Offerors are encouraged to suggest contract types and/or ordering mechanisms & procedures that are compatible with the objectives listed herein.

Funding will be obligated at the time of an order by a Government official with the authority to obligate the Government. Payments will be generally made via the Government Purchase Card or by invoice submission through Wide-Area Workflow (WAWF).

VII. Representative example of requirements

[Cut & paste from RFI listing]

T

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (Technical, Past Performance, & Cost/Price)

GENERAL

Selection of an offeror for contract award will be based on an evaluation of proposals against three factors. The factors in descending order of importance are: technical, past performance, and cost/price.

Although technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, past performance and cost/price are also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price. The

Government intends to make a single award to the offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.

I. TECHNICAL

Listed in descending order or importance:

A. Feasibility of the Proposed PWS/QASP. Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated on the degree to which the proposed PWS/QASP can meet or exceed performance objectives listed in the Statement of Objectives. Successful proposals will demonstrate how well the requirements are understood through a feasible PWS/QASP, such as:

1. Is the PWS/QASP clear, comprehensive and concise?

2. Does the QASP provide meaningful elements for surveillance of only the most critical aspects of the contractor’s performance? QASP need not measure every

Performance Objective individually; it should address the elements of performance critical to ensure success.

3. Does the PWS address how each objective will be met or exceeded and provide a likelihood of successful performance? (i.e. does the proposed technical approach avoid disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance?)

B. Corporate Capabilities. Offerors’ must demonstrate their capabilities to perform their proposed PWS, such as the experience of proposed staff & management.

C. Response to Sample Task Order.

1. How well is the requirement understood?

2. Does the sample TO response clearly address the requirements and set clear delivery dates and methods?

3. Delivery options: (give us a range of delivery options, each priced separately)

T

II. PAST PERFORMANCE. Offeror's past performance information will be evaluated subsequent to the technical evaluation. However, this evaluation will not be conducted on any offeror whose proposal is determined to be technically unacceptable.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

A. Recency: Offerors must describe experience in performing similar requirements within the past 4 years. More recent experience is better than less recent experience.

B. Relevance: Offeror’s past performance will also be compared to how relevant that experience is to this requirement. For this requirement, relevance includes: (1) similarity of product/service/support, (2) complexity of the past performance, and (3) support to other DoD entities and/or medical schools.

C. Quality: Establishes the overall quality of an offeror’s past performance. Examples of high quality are: Satisfactory (or above) CPARS ratings, successful completion of similar requirements, record of on-time delivery at other schools or institutions, feedback and/or customer satisfaction reports from other medical/nursing schools.

Together, these three aspects will be used to determine a “Satisfactory”, “Limited”, “No”, or

“Neutral” confidence rating for each offeror whose technical proposal is determined to be technically acceptable.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance factor. In such cases, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral.”

The evaluation will be based on information provided by the offeror, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government, and any information supplied by the offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken.

III. COST/PRICE.

Offeror(s) cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

Cost Realism: The specific elements of each offeror(s) proposed costs are realistic when the proposed cost elements are evaluated and found to: 1) be realistic for the work to be performed;

2) reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and 3) be consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror(s) technical proposal.

T

Cost Realism will be evaluated only on the offeror(s) inputs which the Government will use to determine the most probable cost to perform the contract in a manner consistent with the offeror's proposal. Cost realism analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d).

The result of the cost realism analysis will be considered in making the best value tradeoff decision.