W50S8E20R0002.pdf

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

W50S8E20R0002 04-Jun-2020

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

631-723-7562

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

05:00 PM 07 Jul 2020

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012)

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

ADDENDA ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

23.

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TELEPHONE NO.

W50S8E9. ISSUED BY

18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a. UNLESS BLOCK

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

SARAMARGARET E. LUNA

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

0 27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

20.

ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

(BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN

% FOR:SET ASIDE:UNRESTRICTED OR X

SMALL BUSINESSX

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

USPFO NY 106 MISSION SUPPORT CONTRACTING

FRANCIS S GABRESKI ARPT BLDG 250

WESTHAMPTON BEACH NY 11978-1201

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

13b. RATING

CODE15. DELIVER TO CODE FA6325 16. ADMINISTERED BY

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFPX

FA6325 - 103 RSQ/PJ

SMSGT THOMAS PEARCE

150 RIVERHEAD ROAD

BLDG. 250, BASE SUPPLY RECEIVING

FRANCIS S. GABRESKI AIRPORT (ANG)

WESTHAMPTON BEACH NY 11978-1201

TEL: 631-723-7974 FAX:

FAX:

TEL: SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SIZE STANDARD:

$8,000,000

NAICS:

621340

X

OFFER DATED

29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF.

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

EMAIL:

TEL:

31c. DATE SIGNED

SEE SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICESITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

24.22.21.19.

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (WOSB)

ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

EDWOSB

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f . TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINALPARTIALCOMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT 41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012) BACK

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

SEE SCHEDULE

20.

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

21.

QUANTITY UNIT

22. 23.

UNIT PRICE

24.

AMOUNT

19.

ITEM NO.

Section SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SECTION L PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSIONREQUIREMENTS

a. Each volume shall be submitted electronically via DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil/). Any portion of the proposal that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated and dated. Each volume shall be clearly labeled with its Title and a copy number (e.g., copy 1 of 5).

b. Each paragraph should be single spaced, and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscapemode.

c. The following volumes of material shall besubmitted:

-Volume 1 Technical 2 digital copies 50 pages maximum -Volume 2 Past Performance 2 digital copies 25 pages maximum -Volume 3 Cost/Price 2 digital copies no page limit -Volume 4 Solicitation, Offer & Award Documents, and Certification/Representations 2 digital copies no page limit

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. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc., and provided on CDsor DVDs. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aide in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

c. Content Requirement. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the technical requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

(i) VOLUME I – Technical Proposal. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Statements that the offeror understands, can, or will comply with the PWS (including referenced publications, technical data, etc.); statements paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof (including applicable publications, technical data, etc.); and phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well known techniques will be used,” etc., will be considered unacceptable. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailedart work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired. The volume shall be organized into the following sections:

Section 1, Sub-Factor 1 - Management Approach: Recruiting, Retention, and Continuity of Services.

Describe your management approach, recruiting and retention plan, and manning chart to support the requirements defined in PWS paragraph 5. (Requirements.) Describe your ability to provide personnel with the experience required to meet the required qualifications.

Section 2, Sub-Factor 2 - Offeror Integration: Integrated and Holistic Approach to HPO Services.

Describe your management approach, personnel required, and system design to integrate strength and conditioning, physical therapy/injury management, and orthopedic manual physical therapy into a holistic HPO program providing the services identified in PWS paragraphs 5.0. Identify how your approach, personnel, and design will accomplish the objectives identified in PWS paragraph 1.2.dentified in PWS paragraph 1.8.

Section 3, Sub-Factor 3 - Approach for Designing HPO Program: Quality Control and Contract Administration Describe your approach for designing a HPO program which will meet the administrative and reporting requirements identified in PWS paragraph 5.1. Identify how your approach will aid in accomplishing the objectives identified in PWS paragraph1.2.

Section 4, Sub-Factor 4 - Offeror Proficiency: Proficiency and Knowledge Describe your proficiency with and knowledge of the specific services required in PWS concerning the Physical Therapist/Injury Manager, Athletic Trainer, and Strength and Conditioning Specialist (paragraph 5.3.) Identify how your proficiency and knowledge will aid in accomplishing the objectives identified in PWS paragraph 1.2 as they relate to a Guardian Angel squadron.

sections:

(ii) VOLUME II – Cost/Price. The volume shall be organized into thefollowing

(1) Electronic Copy. Cost DVD-R requirements: Files contained on the

Volume II Cost DVD-R 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. The Offeror shall provide a completed Section B Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs and shall complete.

(2) Compliance. Failure to comply with the 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 SF1449 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. Offers will be evaluated using the criteria in addendum 52.212-2, “Evaluation – Commercial Items.” Noncompliance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements may hamper the Government's ability to properly evaluate the proposal and may result in elimination of the proposal from further consideration for contract award. 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. It is the Government’s intention to award without discussions. Offerors are encouraged to present their best technical proposal and prices in their initial proposal submission.

However, in accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 15.306, should discussions become necessary, the Government reserves the right to hold them. If this occurs, a competitive range will be determined and offerors notified. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR Part 15.306 (c)(2). 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. Pricing shall be submitted fully completed and error free in the offer schedule of the RFP. The Unit Price, Amount and Net Amount shall be completed for every CLIN and Option CLIN. All final monetary extensions shall be in whole dollars only. In terms of “price reasonableness” the Government will focus on whether the price is too high to be considered fair and reasonable. In terms of “price realism”, the Government will focus on whether the price is too low. The Government’s concern is that the offeror may not understand the requirement or may be offering such a low price that there may be disruption to the program such as high employee turnover. In terms of “completeness”, the Government will focus on whether the price appears to cover all of the work identified in the PWS.

In terms of “balance”, the Government will focus on whether the pricing is consistent throughout the term of contract to include any options. Other than certified cost or pricing data is not anticipated for the award of contract; however, the Government reserves the right to request such information should it become necessary consistent with FAR Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing. There are no page limitations for this volume. Proposal information included in this volume which is not directly related to Cost will be disregarded.

(iii) VOLUME III – Past Performance. This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. This volume shall not exceed 25 pages plus five pages for each major subcontractor, excluding Past Performance Questionnaire Forms. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts 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 solicitation. Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 621340) required by the RFP. Data concerning the offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order. The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors for their past performance to be considered. This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization (name, and current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers).

(b) Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer’s name, e-mail address, telephone and faxnumbers.

(c) Government’s technical representative/Contracting Officer’s Representative and current email address, telephone and faxnumbers.

(d) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone andfaxnumber.

(e) Government contract administration activity’s Pre-Award Monitor’s name, and current e-mail address, telephone and faxnumbers.

(f) Contract Number and, in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery OrderNumbers.

(g) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of IndefiniteDelivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M,etc.).

(h) Awarded price/cost.

(i) Final or projected finalprice/cost.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

(k) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(2) Section 2 – Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP. (a) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The offerors shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the offeror or proposed subcontractor. The offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for thetermination.

(b) For all contracts, the offeror shall provide data on all manufacturing warranty returns. Data shall delineate total number of warranty returns, number of Could Not Duplicate (CND), number of failures attributable to GFE component failures, and number and nature of failures attributable to the offeror’s deliveredproduct.

(3) Section 3 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the RFP will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the entire company name, company address, CAGE Code, DUNS Number and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS subparagraph number. This includes all subcontractors who will be providing critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 49% of the total proposed cost/price. This section will further include written consent of major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of their subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors

(4) Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its offices and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited.

Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.

(5) Past Performance Questionnaire. For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Past Performance Questionnaire must be completed and submitted. The offeror shall complete Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire and e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract. The POCs shall be instructed to electronically complete Part II of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to saramargaret.e.luna.mil@mail.mil and fred.rodriguez1.mil@mail.mil. The offeror shall e-mail to the Contracting Officer a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. The Government must receive this list no later than the proposal due date. The POC List shall be submitted in Word for Windows Table Format to include the following fields: Solicitation Number; Company Name;

mailto:saramargaret.e.luna.mil@mail.mil mailto:fred.rodriguez1.mil@mail.mil

Contract Number; Government Agency; POC Last Name, First Name; POC Title; POC Telephone Number; POC E-mail Address; and Date E-Mail to POC(month/day).

(6) Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as describedabove.

(7) Small Business Participation Past Performance. All Offerors shall submit information substantiating the Offerors’ past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, maximizing opportunities for U.S. small business subcontractors. Offerors shall also provide a statement indicating whether any negative information has been reported in the past six years concerning the Offerors’ past compliance with FAR 52.219-8. If any such negative information has been reported, the Offeror may submit explanations or comments responding to such negative information. Offerors with no prior contracts containing FAR 52.219-8 shall certify the same.

(iv) VOLUME IV – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS

ANDCERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

Certifications and Representations – Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation sections indicated below using the file (without modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 1449 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

Standard Form 1449 (SF 1449), Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items

Award will be made based upon availability of funds.

00600 Section– Annual Representations and Certifications

Solicitations, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations shall not be addressed separately from that submitted in VOLUME V – SOLICITATIONS, OFFER AND AWARD

DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS.

SECTION M PROPOSAL INFORMATION

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: Technical, Cost/Price, and Past Performance. To arrive at a Best Value decision, the Source Selection Authority will integrate the evaluation of Past/Present Performance, Technical and Price as set out in the solicitation. In terms of the relative importance of the factors, the Technical factor is significantly more important than Present/ Past Performance and when combined however, the non-cost factors are significantly more important than the Price Factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all subfactors).

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

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub factors is as follows:

a. 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.

b. 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. The following evaluation factors and sub 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 and sub factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical, and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

2. The proposals will be evaluated under the three (3) evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical Proposal(Most important) Subfactor 1 - Management Approach: Recruiting, Retention, and Continuity of Services Subfactor 2 - Offeror Integration: Integrated and Holistic Approach to HPO Services.

Subfactor 3 - Approach for Designing HPO Program: Quality Control and Contract Administration.

Subfactor 4 - Offeror Proficiency: Proficiency and Knowledge

Factor 2: Price (Somewhat important) Factor 3: Past Performance (Least important)

Subfactor 1: Contract Descriptions.

Subfactor 2: Performance.

Subfactor 3: Subcontracts.

Subfactor 4: New Corporate Entities.

Subfactor 5: Past Performance Questionnaire.

Subfactor 6: Submissions.

Subfactor 7: Small Business Participation Past Performance.

Relative Importance of Factors. Technical proposal is significantly more important than Price. The Price Factor is more important than the past performance. The Past Performance and Technical/Management Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

(a) Factor 1 – Technical/Management Factor. The Technical evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies of the offeror'sproposal.

2. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1 - Management Approach: Recruiting, Retention, and Continuity of Services: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed management approach for the basic contract period and all option years. Marginal levels of overall management approach could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. Describe your management approach, recruiting, and manning chart to support the requirements defined in PWS paragraph

5.0 Describe your ability to provide personnel with the experience required to meet the qualifications identified in PWS paragraph 1.8. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

• Recruitment- Ability to provide personnel with experience required to meet qualifications identified in PWS

• Manning chart- Capability in describing the ability to provide and manage experienced personnel to meet the qualifications identified in PWS

Subfactor 2 - Offeror Integration: Integrated and Holistic Approach to HPO Services.: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s integration of the HPO Program.

Describe your management approach, personnel required, and system design to integrate strength and conditioning, physical therapy/injury management and orthopedic manual physical therapy into a holistic HPO program providing the services identified in PWS paragraph 5.0. Identify how your approach, personnel, and design will accomplish the objectives identified in PWS paragraph 1.8. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

• Integration- Integrate strength and conditioning, physical therapy/injury management, orthopedic manual physical therapy, and operational psychology into a holistic HPO program providing the services identified in PWS

• Integrate how your approach, personnel, and design will accomplish the objectives identified in the PWS

Subfactor 3 - Approach for Designing HPO Program: Quality Control and Contract Administration.: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach for designing a HPO Program. Describe your approach for designing a HPO program which will meet the administrative and reporting requirements identified in PWS paragraph 5.0. Identify how your approach will aid in accomplishing the objectives identified in the PWS. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

• Designing a HPO Program which will meet the administrative, logistics, and reporting requirements identified in thePWS

• Identify how your approach will aid in accomplishing the objectives identified in the PWS

Subfactor 4 - Offeror Proficiency: Proficiency and Knowledge This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proficiency with and knowledge of the HPO Program.

Describe your proficiency with and knowledge of the specific services required in PWS. Identify how your proficiency and knowledge will aid in accomplishing the objectives identified in PWS. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

• Describe proficiency with and knowledge of the specific services required in the PWS concerning the Physical Therapist/Injury Manager, Athletic Trainer, and Strength and ConditioningSpecialist.

• Identify how your proficiency and knowledge will aid in accomplishing the objectives identified in the PWS

Rating Scheme: Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1. There is no separate rating assigned to the individual tabs and no order of importance is stipulated. Tabs are simply used for evaluation purposes to derive a Factor rating.

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 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) Factor 2 – Price. 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) for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated asfollows.

a. 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.

b. Overall Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Cost/Price proposal will evaluated for the following:

1) Compliance: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L, Cost/Price instructions.

2) 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)).

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.

4) Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed firm fixed-price CLIN prices (CLIN 0001, CLIN 0002, CLIN 0003, CLIN

2001, CLIN 2002, CLIN2003, CLIN 3001, CLIN 3002, CLIN 3003, CLIN 4001, CLIN

4002 and CLIN 4003).

To evaluate the option to extend services (FAR 52.217-8) CLINs, one-half of the proposed cost for the last year of the performance period under CLIN 4001, CLIN 4002 and CLIN 4003 shall be added to the Total Evaluated Price.

The resulting award will be a firm fixed price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Utilization of 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. Circumstances may arise that require the Contracting Officer to utilize FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, upon the performance end date of Option Period 4, for no more than six (6) months.

Pricing for an additional six (6) months will be evaluated based off of pricing proposed for Option Period 4 by adding one-half of the offeror's final option period price to the offeror's total price. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option, and 1/2 of the 4th option.

Unbalanced Pricing may be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices.

Definitions.

Reasonableness. 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.

Completeness. The offeror’s proposal is in compliance with the Price Volume instructions in the solicitation.”

Realism: In this regard, the Government is aware that an overly optimistic price proposal may lead to various negative impacts on both the agency and the contractor. Further, unrealistic price proposals may lead the Government to reasonably question the offeror understands of the requirement. An unrealistically low proposal increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Balance: Unbalanced pricing occurs when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more periods of performance is significantly different (much greater or much less). Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and may result in the payment of unreasonably high prices.

(b) Factor 3 - Past Performance. Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that offeror’s record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists.

Past performance areas of evaluation include:

- Business Relations

- Quality of Service

- Schedule

- Cost Control

- Customer Satisfaction

- Compliance with Socio-Economic Goals

(1) Each offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

(2) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(3) Relevancy Assessment. To be relevant, the effort must be of similar in nature of work, size, and complexity. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. Recent past performance is defined as not more than three (3) years from the RFP release date; relevant in terms of similar nature of work, size, and complexity.

- There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 2. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

- A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a “Unknown/Neutral" confidence rating.

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.

(4) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well Offerors have performed on referenced contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2). The Source Selection Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

W50S8E20R0002

(5) Assigning Ratings. Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3.

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 facto 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.

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

0001 1 Job

HUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION (HPO)

FFP

SERVICES, NON-PERSONAL: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR,

TOOLS, PARTS, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, TRANSPORTATION, AND

OTHER INCIDENTALS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH SERVICES LISTED

BELOW:

TO PERFORM SERVICES AS THE GUARDIAN ANGEL WEAPONS SYSTEM

(GAWS) PHYSICAL THERAPIST FOR THE 103RD RESCUE SQUADRON AS

INDICATED IN THE PERFORMANCE STATEMENT OF WORK TITLED

HUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION (HPO) SERVICES DATED 15

NOVEMBER 2019.

PERFORMANCE PERIOD IS FROM 1 APR 20 – 31 MAR 21.

WAGE DETERMINATION NO. : 2015-4157 REV. 9 DATED: 07/16/2019

SHALL APPLY.

FOB: Destination

MFR PART NR: HPO SERVICES

PSC CD: Q518

NET AMT

0002 1 Job

TRAVEL EXPENSE ONLY

FFP

The Contractor shall be authorized travel expenses consistent with the substantive provisions of the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) and the limitation of funds specified in this contract. All travel requires KO approval prior to travel arrangements being made. Travel Receipts shall be provided with each invoice for payment.

FOB: Destination

MFR PART NR: TRAVEL

0003 1 Job

CONTRACT MANPOWER REPORTING

FFP

Please note the Contractor Manpower Reporting requirement is mandated by the Dept. of Air Force and requires the reporting of the dollar value of labor hours for the performance of an awarded service. Statement of Work/Contractor Manpower Reporting.

Requiring Activity UIC FF0970 Contractor Manpower Reporting website: https://www.ecmra.mil/ *Quotes submitted for this line item are for the administrative fee an offeror will charge the government for completing this report on the website indicated above is provided to facilitate reporting.

FOB: Destination

MFR PART NR: CMR

1001 1 Job

OPTION HUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION (HPO)

FFP

SERVICES, NON-PERSONAL: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR,

TOOLS, PARTS, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, TRANSPORTATION, AND

OTHER INCIDENTALS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH SERVICES LISTED

BELOW:

TO PERFORM SERVICES AS THE GUARDIAN ANGEL WEAPONS SYSTEM

(GAWS) PHYSICAL THERAPIST FOR THE 103RD RESCUE SQUADRON AS

INDICATED IN THE PERFORMANCE STATEMENT OF WORK TITLED

HUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION (HPO) SERVICES DATED 15

NOVEMBER 2019.

PERFORMANCE PERIOD IS FROM 1 APR 21 – 31 MAR 22.

FOB: Destination

1002 1 Job

OPTION TRAVEL EXPENSE ONLY

FFP

The Contractor shall be authorized travel expenses consistent with the substantive provisions of the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) and the limitation of funds specified in this contract. All travel requires KO approval prior to travel arrangements being made. Travel Receipts shall be provided with each invoice for payment.

FOB: Destination

1003 1 Job

OPTION CONTRACT MANPOWER REPORTING

FFP

Please note the Contractor Manpower Reporting requirement is mandated by the Dept. of Air Force and requires the reporting of the dollar value of labor hours for the performance of an awarded service. Statement of Work/Contractor Manpower Reporting.

Requiring Activity UIC FF0970 Contractor Manpower Reporting website: https://www.ecmra.mil/ *Quotes submitted for this line item are for the administrative fee an offeror will charge the government for completing this report on the website indicated above is provided to facilitate reporting.

FOB: Destination

2001 1 Job

OPTION HUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION (HPO)

FFP

SERVICES, NON-PERSONAL: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR,

TOOLS, PARTS, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, TRANSPORTATION, AND

OTHER INCIDENTALS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH SERVICES LISTED

BELOW:

TO PERFORM SERVICES AS THE GUARDIAN ANGEL WEAPONS SYSTEM

(GAWS) PHYSICAL THERAPIST FOR THE 103RD RESCUE SQUADRON AS

INDICATED IN THE PERFORMANCE STATEMENT OF WORK TITLED

HUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION (HPO) SERVICES DATED 15

NOVEMBER 2019.

PERFORMANCE PERIOD IS FROM 1 APR 22 – 31 MAR 23.

FOB: Destination

2002 1 Job

OPTION TRAVEL EXPENSE ONLY

FFP

The Contractor shall be authorized travel expenses consistent with the substantive provisions of the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) and the limitation of funds specified in this contract. All travel requires KO approval prior to travel arrangements being made. Travel Receipts shall be provided with each invoice for payment.

FOB: Destination

2003 1 Job

OPTION CONTRACT MANPOWER REPORTING

FFP

Please note the Contractor Manpower Reporting requirement is mandated by the Dept. of Air Force and requires the reporting of the dollar value of labor hours for the performance of an awarded service. Statement of Work/Contractor Manpower Reporting.

Requiring Activity UIC FF0970 Contractor Manpower Reporting website: https://www.ecmra.mil/ *Quotes submitted for this line item are for the administrative fee an offeror will charge the government for completing this report on the website indicated above is provided to facilitate reporting.

FOB: Destination

3001 1 Job

OPTION HUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION (HPO)

FFP

SERVICES, NON-PERSONAL: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL LABOR,

TOOLS, PARTS, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, TRANSPORTATION, AND

OTHER INCIDENTALS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH SERVICES LISTED

BELOW:

TO PERFORM SERVICES AS THE GUARDIAN ANGEL WEAPONS SYSTEM

(GAWS) PHYSICAL THERAPIST FOR THE 103RD RESCUE SQUADRON AS

INDICATED IN THE PERFORMANCE STATEMENT OF WORK TITLED

HUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION (HPO) SERVICES DATED 15

NOVEMBER 2019.

PERFORMANCE PERIOD IS FROM 1 APR 23 – 31 MAR 24.

FOB: Destination

3002 1 Job

OPTION TRAVEL EXPENSE ONLY

FFP

The Contractor shall be authorized travel expenses consistent with the substantive provisions of the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) and the limitation of funds specified in this contract. All travel requires KO approval prior to travel arrangements being made. Travel Receipts shall be provided with each invoice for payment.

FOB: Destination

3003 1 Job

OPTION CONTRACT MANPOWER REPORTING

FFP

Please note the Contractor Manpower Reporting requirement is mandated by the Dept. of Air Force and requires the reporting of the dollar value of labor hours for the performance of an awarded service. Statement of Work/Contractor Manpower Reporting.

Requiring Activity UIC FF0970 Contractor Manpower Reporting website: https://www.ecmra.mil/ *Quotes submitted for this line item are for the administrative fee an offeror will charge the government for completing this report on the website indicated above is provided to facilitate reporting.

FOB: Destination

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

CLIN INSPECT AT INSPECT BY ACCEPT AT ACCEPT BY

0001 Destination Government Destination Government 0002 Destination Government Destination Government 0003 Destination Government Destination Government 1001 Destination Government Destination Government 1002 Destination Government Destination Government 1003 Destination Government Destination Government 2001 Destination Government Destination Government 2002 Destination Government Destination Government 2003 Destination Government Destination Government 3001 Destination Government Destination Government 3002 Destination Government Destination Government 3003 Destination Government Destination Government

DELIVERY INFORMATION

CLIN DELIVERY DATE QUANTITY SHIP TO ADDRESS DODAAC /

CAGE

0001 POP 01-APR-2020 TO

31-MAR-2021

N/A FA6325 - 103 RSQ/PJ

SMSGT THOMAS PEARCE

150 RIVERHEAD ROAD

BLDG. 250, BASE SUPPLY RECEIVING

FRANCIS S. GABRESKI AIRPORT (ANG)

WESTHAMPTON BEACH NY 11978-1201

631-723-7974 FOB: Destination

FA6325

0002 POP 01-APR-2020 TO

31-MAR-2021

N/A (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

0003 POP 01-APR-2020 TO

31-MAR-2021

N/A (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

1001 POP 01-APR-2021 TO

31-MAR-2022

N/A (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

1002 POP 01-APR-2021 TO

N/A (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

1003 POP 01-APR-2021 TO

N/A (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

2001 POP 01-APR-2022 TO

31-MAR-2023

N/A (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

2002 POP 01-APR-2022 TO

N/A (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

2003 POP 01-APR-2022 TO

N/A (SAME AS PREVIOUS LOCATION)

3001 POP 01-APR-2023 TO

31-MAR-2024

N/A (SAME AS PREVIOUS…