Combined Synopsis and Solicitation REVISED.pdf

Revisions highlighted 19Sep19 Pre-habilitative Neck and Back Fitness Services

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items provided in accordance with the format in FAR Subparts 12.6 and 13.5 as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being request and a written solicitation will not be issued. W50S9C-23-Q-0020 is issued as a Request for Proposal (RFP) and incorporates provisions and clauses in affect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-100.

The Vermont Air National Guard, has a requirement for a vendor to conduct pre-habilitative Athletic Training and Sports & Conditioning training services as outlined in this solicitation and attached Performance Work Statement (PWS).

This requirement is total set aside for small business. The NAICS code and small business size standard for this procurement are 621340 and $7.5 M respectively. Contractors must state in their quotes their business size for this NAICS code.

All questions must be submitted in writing no later than 19 September 2023 at 10:00 a.m. eastern standard time.

Offers must be sent in writing to kristen.lucey.2@us.af.mil and james.yoshikawa@us.af.mil not later than 1:00 PM. eastern standard time, 22 September 2023. Award will be made on or about 28 September 2023.

52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items.

As prescribed in 12.301(c), the Contracting Officer may insert a provision substantially as follows: Evaluation- Commercial Items (Oct 2014)

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award one Firm-Fixed 4 month contract (up to 6 months) contract to a responsible vendor whose quote conforms to this solicitation and is considered most advantageous to the Government.

The period of performance for the contract is a base period of four months (up to 6 months). Anticipated award of the contract is 28 September 2023.

Contractors must have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to receiving any contract award. Contractors can register in SAM via the Internet at https://www.sam.gov/.

Vendor product submissions:

1. Proposal

2. Pricing worksheet

3. Acknowledgement of Amendments to the solicitation, which includes amendments for questions and answers.

4. Completion of applicable certifications and representations via System for Award Management. ( 52.212‐3 OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS‐‐COMMERCIAL ITEMS (DEC 2016) ALTERNATE I (OCT 2014)

PROPOSAL FILES:

1. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled. Each section/factor shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each section shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer.

The following additional restrictions apply:

2. File Packaging. All proposals shall be standard documents (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc). Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable.

3. Content Requirement. 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.

The quote must contain the following clearly labeled sections: (1) Technical Capability (2) Past Performance References and (3) Management Plan / Key Personnel, (4) Price. Content responsive to each section should be confined to the relevant section, not duplicated in multiple sections. Only sufficient information to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal should be included. Offerors quote will address the areas provided below.

1) Technical Capability;

a) Demonstrated working relationship between AT and SCS

b) Experience with neck and spine injury rehab and/or continuing education

c) Sample client training plan demonstrating use of both AT and Strength and Conditioning practice standards

d) Conformance with the PWS (providing contractor approach to the PWS and demonstrating an understanding of the requirement)

a. Sample assessment

b. Sample treatment plan

c. Sample quarterly report

e) Tentative start that includes documentation to start as close to September 30th as possible.

2) Past Performance (see FAR 15.304); offeror’s will provide 3-5 past performance references/Government Contract Numbers for work of similar size, scope, and duration.

a) Contracts or jobs of similar size and scope (demonstrating work with pre-habilitation / prevention of neck and spinal injuries)

b) Experience developing and/or modifying strength training routines to prevent injury or adapt routines for clients who are currently experiencing injury.

3) Management Plan / Key Personnel:

a) Resumes of key personnel demonstrating the following”

a. AT possess at least two years demonstrated experience or master’s degree in athletic training

b. Strength and Conditioning coach certification from one of the following institutions: by NSCA as a CSCS, or NASM as a PES, or CSCCa, as a SCCC / MSCC or ISSA as a SCC.

c. Demonstrated experience in providing client education on nutrition

b) Management Approach; (2) On site staffing plan; (3) Recruiting/Hiring and (4) Administration that clearly demonstrate their capability to provide staffing and the required services for the proposed contract, to include information on surge requirements

4) Price:

Vendors to submit their pricing on the sample task order pricing worksheet for evaluation by the government.

Task order Unit Price proposed shall be the fully burdened rate for the applicable labor categories and inclusive of required reports and CMRA reporting.

Vendor task order pricing is not based on an annual or monthly rate, it shall be the fully burdened rate for the applicable CLIN line and inclusive of required reports and CMRA reporting.

BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will determine which quote is most advantageous based on the evaluation factors: Technical Capabilities, Past Performance, Management Plan/Key Personnel, and Price.

Technical capabilities and past performance when combined are significantly more important than price

The technical factor will be evaluated in terms of how well the offeror’s quote addresses the requirements as set forth in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), the evaluation areas identified above and confirmation of the required licenses and certifications. The government is providing several pieces of fitness equipment as outlined in the PWS. Contractor provided equipment WILL NOT be assessed as part of the evaluation. Past performance will be evaluated based on a minimum of three references provided by the contractor, which will be checked by the USPFO-VT. References must be for similar services performed within the last three years. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the past performance reference information provided by the offeror, information received by the government when checking vendor submitted past performance references and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Negative past performance found using these sources within the last three years may result in a past performance confidence rating of “Unsatisfactory Confidence”

Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost/price offered.

However, even if it is indicated that factors other than price, when combined, are weighted more important than price, if non-price factors do not provide an adequate basis to distinguish between offers, the Government reserves the right to make award based on price. Because award will be made based on best overall value to the government, not on price alone, it is important that proposals describe how the contractor proposes to meet the requirements of the PWS, not just a price without a description of the offeror’s capabilities.

Services are in support of the VTANG Fighter Squadron at 45 NCO drive, South Burlington, VT 05403-5837.

All responsible sources may submit an offer which, if received in a timely manner, will be considered.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions. Therefore the offeror’s initial quote should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to seek clarification or to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.

This requirement contains 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 the base period, for no more than two (2) months. Pricing for an additional two (2) months will be evaluated based off of pricing proposed for Option Period one. Inclusion of this clause shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options(s).

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

The government will award a single firm fixed price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract. The contracting officer will issue individual firm fixed price task orders (TO) for services.

1. FACTORS 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 assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Capability: The Technical Capability will be evaluated on the capabilities and strength of proposal based on how it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph 2 of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign the Technical factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed using a list of references and/or contract numbers to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Management Plan / Key Personnel: Management Approach for Staffing, Recruiting/Hiring and Administration shall clearly demonstrate their capability to provide staffing and the required services for the proposed contract

Factor 4: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a Firm Fixed Price. Price reasonableness may be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

2. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by a Source Selection Team (SST) consisting of, at a minimum, the contracting officer, requiring activity representative, and other personnel as deemed necessary.

a. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

1) Adequacy of Response. All factors are evaluated for adequacy of response (whether the offeror's proposal fully satisfies the requirements set forth in the solicitation/RFQ).

2) Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror's proposal is workable and capable of achieving the required end results within the required schedule.

b. The Technical factor evaluates the offeror’s proposal for the basic contract period and all option years that at least meets the minimum Acceptable levels of the overall requirement. A rating of Marginal 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.

Evaluation of Technical factor: The Technical factor will be reviewed according to whether the proposal demonstrates that the offeror understands the requirement, has the necessary expertise to achieve it, and its proposal is adequately designed to achieve required results. The Technical approach and related risk are evaluated using the combined technical/risk rating table below, which considers risk in conjunction with strengths, 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.

c. Cost/Price Factor. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Price proposals. The Government will fully evaluate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for award. For award purposes, the Government will use a sample task order (see provided pricing table) for each of the base and option years. The government will evaluate the total sum of the CLIN total proposed prices. While the grand total of the sample task orders for the base and three option years will be used as the basis for evaluating proposals, the offerors proposed unit prices must be based on fully burdened rates that will be binding on the purchase order. The evaluation of option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. 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 Cost/Price proposal will evaluated for the following:

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

b) 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)).

c) 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.

d. 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 efforts of the PWS.

1) Evaluation of past performance shall be done by review of information provided by the offeror’s references and previous contracts of the same size and scope to this PWS.

2) 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, and past performance. 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.

3) Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past 3 years, from the issue date of this RFQ, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFQ. 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.

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

(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from references, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

5) Performance Confidence Assessment: The Government will utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 3 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror.

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.

Effective 1 June 1998, contractors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM), prior to receiving any contract award. You can register in SAM via the internet at https://www.sam.gov.

52.212-3 OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (DEC

2016) ALTERNATE I (OCT 2014)

The offeror shall complete only paragraphs (b) of this provision if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM) Web site located at https://www.sam.gov/portal . If the Offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically, the Offeror shall complete only paragraphs (c) through (t) of this provision. Refer to attached full text clause in FBO.

(b) (1) Annual Representations and Certifications. Any changes provided by the Offeror in paragraph (b)(2) of this provision do not automatically change the representations and certifications in SAM.

(2) The offeror has completed the annual representations and certifications electronically in SAM accessed through http://www.sam.gov. After reviewing SAM information, the Offeror verifies by submission of this offer that the representations and certifications currently posted electronically at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications--Commercial Items, have been entered or updated in the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), at the time this offer is submitted and are incorporated in this offer by reference (see FAR 4.1201). [Offeror to identify the applicable paragraphs at (c) through (u) of this provision that the offeror has completed for the purposes of this solicitation only, if any.

These amended representation(s) and/or certification(s) are also incorporated in this offer and are current, accurate, and complete as of the date of this offer. Any changes provided by the offeror are applicable to this solicitation only, and do not result in an update to the representations and certifications posted electronically on SAM.]

4. Clauses and provisions can be viewed through Internet access at the FAR site, https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far. The FAR provisions and clauses are in document “W50S9C-23- Q-Provisions and Clauses REVISED” attached to this FBO solicitation.