OTA Announcement - Expanded Testing - 10 Mar 2021 - REV 1 _ track changes.pdf

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1. Authority and Purpose

This Project Announcement describes a multi-phased competitive process that may result in the award of one or more prototype projects as detailed below.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in collaboration with the Army Contracting Command – Rock Island (ACC-RI), is seeking white papers for expansion of United States (U.S.) testing capacity using coordination centers. HHS is seeking a prototype project to expand testing opportunities for K-8 schools, underserved populations and congregate settings, such as homeless shelters, across the nation. Through ACC-RI, HHS desires to award one or more Other Transaction Authority (OTA) agreements to carry out prototype project(s) pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2731b. The information provided in this Project Announcement is to ensure, that to the maximum extent practicable, the Army uses competitive procedures to enter into agreements to carry out a prototype project(s). These competitively awarded prototype project(s) may result in subsequent non-competitive follow-on transaction agreements/contracts as detailed in section 1.2.

1.2. Procedure

The goal of this announcement is to request white papers in Phase I and proposals in Phase II;

and to award one or more prototype project(s) for the U.S. Government to address the problems as described in section 2.1. In this context, “prototype project” means any new process, or business practice, or any new application of an existing solution, or business practice designed to meet the Government’s requirements as set forth in this Project Announcement. The U.S.

Government will utilize a multi-step, down-select approach under the Other Transaction Authority and any awarded prototypes may include multiple phases/milestones.

The potential for follow-on agreements and production contracts for projects awarded from this announcement will be in accordance with 10.U.S.C. 2371b (f). Upon a determination that the competitively awarded prototype project(s) has been successfully completed in accordance with the criteria set forth in the respective agreement, and subject to the availability of funds, the prototype project(s) may result in the award of a follow-on contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures of a quantity and duration sufficient to meet the continued public health needs, which is expected to be a period of 6 or more months at comparable or greater quantity of testing that is set forth in this Project Announcement.

Due to the time sensitive nature of this effort, this announcement is being released ahead of an approved Determination and Findings (D&F) by the Senior Procurement Authority for the U.S.

Army, allowing the use of an OTA for this requirement. Any award resulting from this announcement will be subject to and executed after D&F approval. After the D&F is approved, the execution of an award will be dependent on funding approval. Any interested party should note in their submission briefs any conditions to their submission based upon the status of the determination.

1.3. Use of Contractor Support

Government employees will be responsible for the review and evaluation of responses submitted to this announcement, and will make the final award selection(s). Non‐Army advisors that have signed Non‐Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with the U.S. Government may be used in the evaluation of White papers and Proposals. The Army understands that information provided in this Announcement is presented in confidence and may contain trade secret or commercial or financial information and agrees to protect such information from unauthorized disclosure to the maximum extent permitted and as required by law. A respondent’s participation in any part of the selection process under this Announcement indicates concurrence with the aforementioned use of contractor support personnel and their access to White papers and Proposals. Personnel from the following contractors may be used in evaluation:

• Logistics Management Institute (LMI)

• Venesco, LLC

• National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance (doing business as VentureWell)

SECTION 2 – PROBLEM OVERVIEW

2.1. Description of Problem

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, over 300 million tests have been reported complete in the United States. There are currently an estimated 2 million laboratory-based tests completed per day (about 60 million per month) and another approximate 4 million point-of-care tests daily.

There is potential capacity to conduct over an additional 150 million tests per month if the existing supply was supplemented through increased manufacturing, distribution, and utilization.

The additional testing capacity could be used more strategically, for example, to help schools safely reopen, reduce the opportunities for transmission in non-health care congregate settings such as shelters for individuals experiencing homelessness, and reach communities that are underserved or struggle to consistently access testing capacity. Effectively used testing strategies will help to identify and proactively minimize silent transmission, curtail broader community transmission, prevent outbreaks in institutional and community settings, and protect vulnerable individuals and populations. The U.S. Government is committed to doing everything it can to strategically expand the nation’s testing capacity. This program would initiate and formalize a national network of testing facilities useful in slowing the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as curbing future outbreaks and resurgences.

The U.S. Government desires to develop a prototype project that will initiate and formalize a national network of laboratories and supporting facilities useful in slowing the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as curbing future outbreaks, resurgences, and future pandemics. The objectives under Attachment 0001 – Statement of Objectives (SOO), are to prototype up to four coordination centers, optimized to best support the population of the United States. It is anticipated that each coordination center will be awarded on a different agreement. The primary goal of this requirement is to help safely re-open K-8 schools by establishing regional coordination and oversight of testing supplies, coordinating testing, and reporting results to public health.

The Prototype project will need to account for all requirements and objectives listed in Attachment 0001 – SOO, of this OTA Announcement. The following is a list of objectives and requirements from the SOO that must be met by the contractor as part of the white paper and proposal response to this OTA Announcement (this list is not all encompassing):

1.) Establish Coordination Centers (SOO Objective 5.1) 2.) Establish Testing Capacity (SOO Objective 5.2) 3.) Procurement of Tests (SOO Objective 5.3) 4.) Report Test Results (SOO Objective 5.4) 5.) Program Management (SOO Objective 5.5) 6.) Subcontract Management (SOO Objective 5.6) 7.) Compliance Requirements (SOO Objective 5.7)

SECTION 3 - GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF WHITE

PAPERS AND PROPOSALS

3.1 General Guidelines

The following guidelines apply to all submissions under this Announcement:

1) 10 USC 2371b requires competitive procedures be used to the maximum extent practicable. This Announcement, which is posted on beta.sam.gov, serves as a competitive opportunity for interested parties to present solutions and be evaluated for selection of a prototype project and is considered to satisfy the reasonable effort to obtain competition in accordance with 10 USC 2371b (b)(2).

2) The Army reserves the right to make a prototype project award at any step during the selection process.

3) The Army will not reimburse interested respondents for costs of preparing and submitting white papers, proposals, pricing information, or any other activity during the competitive selection process.

4) Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or marketing materials are not desired.

5) Use of a diagram(s) or figure(s) to depict the essential information presented is strongly encouraged.

6) All white papers, proposals and follow-on discussions, as applicable, shall be unclassified.

Submission of a white paper and proposal under this Announcement indicates confirmation that the submission provided is unclassified.

7) Each restricted white paper and proposal should be marked as follows: “Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this Proposal.”

8) White papers and proposals containing data that is not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Army except for evaluation purposes shall include the following statement on the cover page: “This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the U.S. Government, except to non- Army personnel for evaluation purposes, and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed – in whole or in part -- for any purpose other than to evaluate this submission. If, however, an agreement is awarded to this Company as a result of -- or in connection with -- the submission of this data, the Army shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent agreed upon by both parties in the resulting agreement. This restriction does not limit the U.S. Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]”

9) White papers and proposals may be considered by the Army for a prototype award up to six (6) months after submission for same or similar requirements.

10) Questions regarding this Announcement shall be sent to the Acquisition POCs, Ms. Trisha Mariman, trisha.m.mariman.civ@mail.mil, Contracting Officer; Mr. Christopher Fields christopher.m.fields24.civ@mail.mil, Contract Specialist; and Ms. Ann Bonis, ann.m.bonis.civ@mail.mil, Contract Specialist. If Offerors have questions, the U.S. Government requests Offerors submit them grouped by objective under this Announcement section 2.1, and make reference to the particular objective number. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure its questions are received by 0900 Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 10 March 2021. The Government will make its best effort to respond to questions submitted in accordance with this paragraph. Questions sent to any other inbox other than those listed above will not be considered.

3.2 Two-Phase Process Overview

This Announcement will be conducted in two phases as follows:

Phase I. Interested Offerors must submit a white paper which shall include an Executive Summary, Prototype Project Overview, and Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM), with Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and cage code. The white paper shall be five (5) pages or less – excluding the cover page and table of contents, and must demonstrate how the Offeror has the required organization, partnerships, outreach and technical capabilities to accomplish the specified requirements in Attachment 0001 - SOO.

White paper submissions shall be sent to the Acquisition POCs, Ms. Trisha Mariman, trisha.m.mariman.civ@mail.mil, Contracting Officer; Mr. Christopher Fields christopher.m.fields24.civ@mail.mil, Contract Specialist; and Ms. Ann Bonis, ann.m.bonis.civ@mail.mil, Contract Specialist, for review by 1500 EST on 15 March 2021.

mailto:trisha.m.mariman.civ@mail.mil mailto:christopher.m.fields24.civ@mail.mil mailto:ann.m.bonis.civ@mail.mil mailto:trisha.m.mariman.civ@mail.mil mailto:christopher.m.fields24.civ@mail.mil mailto:ann.m.bonis.civ@mail.mil

Submissions sent to any other inbox other than those listed above will not be considered. All white papers must be unclassified.

Notification of Selection. Only Offerors providing Phase I submissions that are of interest to the U.S. Government will be contacted by the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government will ask said Offerors to submit proposals IAW Phase II.

Phase II. Phase II proposals will only be accepted from Offerors who upon review of Phase I submissions are invited by the U.S. Government to submit a full proposal. In order to be considered for an agreement, Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov, be considered responsible within the meaning of FAR Part 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, have a satisfactory performance record, and otherwise be eligible for award based on federal law and regulation. Should an Offeror not have an active registration in SAM, the Offeror shall address its status in registering on the SAM and understand that award of an agreement is contingent on approved registration. This shall allow a proposal submission while registering.

Proposal Submission. Upon notification for a proposal by the U.S. Government, Offerors will have eight calendar days to prepare and submit a full proposal. Proposals are limited to a total of 20 pages excluding the Price Matrix. All proposal pages shall be numbered. Offerors shall also confirm its eligibility to enter into a OTA agreement under the authority of 10 USC 2371b, and shall state whether its proposal is covered by 10 USC 2371b(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C).

3.3 Period of Performance

The prototype project is a period of six months.

3.4 Place of Performance

Place of performance will vary depending upon the solution proposed by the Offeror.

3.5 Key Dates

The following is a summary of the anticipated events and dates associated with this Announcement:

EVENT ESTIMATED DATE/TIMEFRAME

Announcement Released 08 March 2021 Whitepapers Due 15 March 2021 Invitation to submit Proposals 24 March 2021 Proposals Due 01 April 2021 Award 27 April 2021

3.6 Phase I- White Paper Submission

3.6.1 Phase I - White Paper Submission Content:

White papers should not exceed five (5) single-sided written pages using 12-point font. White Papers must be sent as PDFs. White papers must be submitted no later than 1500 EST on 15 March 2021. The U.S. Government reserves the right to or not to evaluate White Papers received after the submission deadline. All submissions must be sent to the points of contact (POC) listed in the POC section of this Announcement.

Offerors are responsible for clearly identifying proprietary information. Submissions containing proprietary information must have the cover page and each page containing such information clearly marked with a label such as “Proprietary.” The U.S. Government will assume information is not proprietary, unless marked. The Army policy is to treat all White Papers received as source selection information and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. However, the U.S. Government may release information consistent with applicable law, including, but not limited to, the Freedom of Information Act. During the evaluation process, submissions may be handled by support contractors for administrative purposes.

White papers must include the following:

a. Title Page: Company Name, CAGE code, DUNS number, Title, Date, Point of Contact Name, E-Mail Address, Phone, and Address. Specifically identify the Announcement for which the White paper is submitted. (This should not be included in the 5 written page limit).

b. Executive Summary: Provide an executive summary of the prototype project. (This should be included in the 5 written page limit).

c. Prototype Project Concept: Show and/or describe how your proposed prototype project addresses the required organization, partnerships, outreach and technical capabilities to accomplish the specified requirements in Attachment 0001 - SOO. The prototype project shall demonstrate the Offeror’s clear understanding of all of the objectives and how the prototype project is likely to yield the required results within the required time frame. Please describe all relationships, partnerships, and subcontracts with other parties that will be utilized in ensuring all areas of outlined in Attachment 0001 – SOO are covered (this should be included in the 5 written page limit).

d. Price: Provide a ROM price for the proposed solution to complete the proposed prototype project that covers all areas outlined in Attachment 0001 – SOO, and include desired payment terms. (This should not be included in the 5 written page limit).

NOTE: The Title Page and ROM does not count against page limit, however, the Executive Summary and Prototype Project Concept does.

3.6.2 Phase I - White Paper Basis of Evaluation:

White Paper evaluation criteria are listed in order of importance from top to bottom. Individual White Papers will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria described below:

1. Responsiveness of the White Paper in addressing all areas of Attachment 0001 – SOO with a prototype project readily available to meet the immediate needs;

2. The technical merit of the proposed prototype project, including the extent to which the proposed prototype project is innovative to U.S. Government application; and the proposed project is likely to yield the required results within the required time frame.

White Papers will be evaluated on the evaluation criteria listed above, not against other White Papers submitted in response to the same Announcement. The U.S. Government may elect to use external market research in the evaluation of a company’s viability.

The Executive Summary and Prototype Project portion of the White Paper submission will be evaluated based on the following ratings and definitions:

WHITE PAPER SUBMISSION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROTOTYPE PROJECT

Rating Definition

Excellent

An excellent rating will be given if the Offeror’s White Paper meets, and provides an excellent understanding of, the prototype project and technical requirements outlined in Attachment 0001 - SOO, and the overarching approach has a high probability of achieving all or most of the requirements.

White Paper has significantly more positive than negative attributes.

Good

A good rating will be given if the Offeror’s White Paper meets, and provides a good understanding of, the prototype project and technical requirements outlined in Attachment 0001 - SOO, and the overarching approach has a good probability of achieving all or most of the requirements. White Paper has more positive than negative attributes.

Acceptable

An acceptable rating will be given if the Offeror’s White Paper meets, and demonstrates an average understanding of, the prototype project and technical requirements outlined in Attachment 0001 - SOO, and the overarching approach has an average probability of achieving all or most of the requirements. White Paper does not have more negative than positive attributes.

Unacceptable

An unacceptable rating will be given if the Offeror’s White Paper does not meet, and demonstrates little or no understanding of, the prototype project and technical requirements outlined in Attachment 0001 - SOO, and the overarching approach has a low probability of achieving all or most of the requirements. White Paper has more negative than positive attributes.

The ROM portion of the White Paper submission will evaluated as “Yes/No” as to whether the ROM price is reasonable, including costs compared to similar products and processes as proposed by the Offeror, and the particulars of the proposed technical approach.

Upon review of a White Paper, the U.S. Government may elect to invite “all, some, or none” into Phase 2 and request proposal submissions based on the merits of the White Paper. Only the Offerors invited to Phase 2 will be notified. If necessary, Offerors invited to submit a proposal may be advised to schedule a teleconference with technical and contracting staff to address any feedback contained in the request for proposal. The proposal must be prepared in two separate Volumes as follows: Volume I Technical and Volume II Price. Each Volume will have its separate related Attachments. During Phase 2, the U.S. Government may request and/or provide additional information to the company.

3.7 Phase II- Proposal Submission

3.7.1 Phase II- Request for Proposal Submission Requirements:

The second and final Phase of the Announcement is the request for proposal submissions.

Through this Announcement, Offeror(s) will be invited to submit a proposal based off their White Paper submission. Offerors must ensure that their proposal is valid for at least 120 days from the submission date. Proposals must include separate technical and price volumes.

Submissions shall adhere to 20 pages (12-point font) per volume not including the cover page and table of contents. Based on the U.S. Government’s market research and previous efforts the U.S. Government anticipates selecting multiple Offerors to submit proposals as a result of the White Paper evaluations.

If an Offeror(s) receives a request to submit a proposal from the U.S. Government, proposals must be submitted no later than the date and time identified in the request for proposal. The U.S.

Government requires proposals to be submitted within eight (8) days after receipt of the request for proposal, but reserves the right to define the specific due date and time that may be less or more than eight (8) days based on the urgency of the requirement. The U.S. Government reserves the right to or not to evaluate proposals received after the submission deadline. All proposal submissions must be sent via e-mail, with subject line stating “(Insert Company Name) Expansion Testing” to the POCs listed in the POC section of this Announcement. Due the urgent nature surrounding this requirement the U.S. Government may execute awards against this Announcement at any time after the receipt of proposals.

In addition to the Offeror’s proposed prototype project addressing the problems as stated in the description of the problem and Attachment 0001 – SOO, the Offeror will describe how they will establish a testing capability consisting of a coordination center(s) and satellite laboratories on a geographically regional basis. The Offeror must clearly identify which region they are proposing for as specified in SOO. If the Offeror intends to address more than one of the regions identified in this Announcement, it must submit a separate proposal for each region being proposed. It is the U.S. Government’s intent to award an agreement for each individual Coordination Center.

The U.S. Government intends to evaluate proposals consistent with the following:

FACTOR ONE – TECHNICAL

FACTOR TWO – PRICE - Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Relative importance of factors: Factor One – Technical, is significantly more important than Factor Two – Price; however, price will contribute substantially to any award decision.

3.7.2 Factor 1 - Technical Proposal Volume (Limited to 20 pages):

In addition to the Offeror’s proposed prototype addressing the problems as stated in the description of the problem and Attachment 0001 – SOO, the Offeror shall describe how they will establish a testing capability consisting of a coordination center and satellite laboratories on a geographically regional basis. The U.S. Government intends to evaluate proposals based on the Offeror’s approach to the following equally weighed aspects of the technical approach to meeting the objectives and requirements laid out in Attachment 0001 – SOO that also address the following:

• Proposed Coordination Center Structure o Describe the anticipated structure of the coordination center (location, management, other details as necessary) o Provide a detailed project schedule that outlines the various phases of work to be accomplished within the proposed period of performance, including the proposed time from contract award to initial testing and to full operational capability.

• Currently established Laboratory Network o Describe any current day-to-day business function relevant to partnering with, or coordinating, testing sites including, at a minimum, number of testing sites coordinated and detailing distribution of CLIA-certified and non-certified laboratories.

• Proposed Laboratory Network o Describe the overall structure and management of the laboratory network. Indicate if the entire laboratory network will operate under CLIA guidelines or if RUO labs will be utilized to meet testing and reporting volumes described in the Statement of Objectives. Details should indicate an understanding of the testing strategy (screening, surveillance, and/or diagnostic) and appropriate reporting requirements.

o Describe commitment of suggested laboratories in terms of staffing, infrastructure, and in-kind support to include existing, relevant equipment or underutilized laboratory space.

o Indicate expected throughput and capacities across proposed network for sample processing from pre-analytic (e.g. specimen shipping, receiving and LIS processing), analytic (e.g. extraction and testing), and post-analytic (e.g. reporting, storing, shipping for confirmatory testing). Include plan for test distribution or allocation.

o Describe school outreach plan including coordination with specimen transport and labs.

• Understanding of Regional Testing Needs and Logistics o Describe model for coordinating regional testing needs with excess laboratory network capacity. Include strategy to efficiently anticipate and distribute testing supplies and collected samples.

o Describe plan to achieve an average turnaround time from specimen collection to initial reporting of results of less than 48 hours across proposed region.

• Specimen Management o Describe specimen management including, but not limited to, accessioning, tracking, storage, and disposal. Indicate capacity limitations across laboratory network.

o Describe how specimen integrity is maintained prior to obtaining valid results and during any proposed transits (e.g. from collection site to laboratory or between laboratories).

o Describe the strategy for consistent quality assurance (QA) across the network.

o Describe control strategy that ensures only validated sample types are used relative to test and methods performed.

• Information Management and Reporting Capability o Describe the process for managing information and reporting results to and from individuals/guardians, school districts, and relevant public health agencies. Details include, but are not limited to, how test requests and results are received from the labs, how information security will be maintained in compliance with the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and other applicable state and federal laws, and how data entry will be performed.

o Propose method of tracking tests requested, assigned, performed, and reported. Inclusion of procedures and components of a data quality management system is beneficial. Indicate what is existing and what needs to be implemented prior to launch. Describe quality metrics.

o Demonstrate experience with, or understanding of, diagnostic testing regulation and multi-state Public Health reporting requirements.

• Proportion of Total Testing Capability Achievable o Describe volume of tests per month across laboratory network and detail proposed turn-around times for individual specimens.

o Provide evaluation of potential size of the populations described in the objectives that will become accessible to proposed laboratory network.

o Plans and ability to pivot to other non-school settings depending on the fraction of children in school and calendar phase of implementation.

o Describe sustainability of coordination center and Laboratory Network beyond initial federal support.

3.7.3 Factor 2 – Price Proposal Volume (No Page Limit)

The Government anticipates receiving competitive proposals under this Announcement. The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) OT Agreement for each of the four regions/Coordination Centers (as described in section 2.1 of this Announcement). The Government will provide Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix; and the period of performance will be six months.

The Offeror shall complete an Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix for each Region/Coordination Center that on the Offeror is proposing on. Each area that requires the Offeror’s input has been highlighted in blue. If the Offeror chooses to submit accompanying information to support their prices in Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix, the accompanying documents shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel. If the Offeror chooses to submit a narrative and supporting price reasonableness documents, those shall be submitted in Microsoft Word.

Failure to fill out Attachment 0002- Price Matrix in its entirety may result in the Offeror being deemed non-compliant and its proposal may not be considered for award.

All prices shall be submitted in U.S. dollars and will be automatically rounded to two decimals points.

Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix will be locked to prevent inadvertent changes. The Offeror shall not add other information or make any changes to the Price Matrix; doing so may deem an Offeror non-compliant and its proposal may not be considered for award.

CLIN 0001 – FFP - SOO Objective 5.1: Coordination Center set up. (All contractor and subcontractor total costs (labor and materials), THIS IS THE UPFRONT START-UP COSTS (laboratory equipment, supplies, etc.) TO BE INVOICED UPON START-UP COMPLETION or INVOICE BASED ON PERCENT COMPLETION PER MONTH. **THIS DOES NOT

INCLUDE COSTS TO CONDUCT TESTING

CLIN 0002 – FFP - SOO Objective 5.5 & 5.6: Coordination Center Program Management:

Prime Contractor Labor program management of the Coordination Center **THIS DOES NOT

INCLUDE COSTS TO CONDUCT TESTING.

CLIN 0003 – Firm Fixed Unit Price (FFUP) - SOO Objectives 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 & 5.7: COVID-19 Test: All contractor and subcontractor total costs required for conducting tests (labor and materials), TO CONDUCT ONE COVD-19 TEST. **THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE COSTS

ASSOCAITED WITH THE START-UP CENTER COST OR THE COORDINATION

CENTER PROGRAM MANAGEMENT. Offerors shall enter its proposed fully burdened FFUP for CLIN 0003. Please note: 25,000,000 is provided by the Government as an estimated quantity for evaluation purposes only. The FFUP shall be inclusive of all mark up and burdens, to include, but not limited to, Fringe, Overhead, G&A, Profit. The U.S. Government anticipates CLIN 0003 to be invoiced by the Awardee on a monthly basis.

As a reminder, for all FFP CLINs, the offeror is required to propose the price to include mark up and burdens, to include, but not limited to, Fringe, Overhead (OH), General & Administrative (G&A), and Profit.

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the total of all CLINs in Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix.

Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data: The Government anticipates receiving competitive proposals and using competition to determine price reasonableness. However, the Government reserves the right to request data other than certified cost or pricing data, after receipt of proposals, to determine price reasonableness if competition is not adequate for the purpose. This can include but is not limited to commercial price catalog(s), previous commercial sales receipts, and/or other proprietary information to help the Government determine reasonableness.

3.8 Proposal Basis of Evaluation

3.8.1 Technical Proposal Evaluation Basis and Rating:

Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated as received by the U.S. Government. In all cases, proprietary information shall be protected from competitors. The proposal evaluation criteria is listed in order of importance from top to bottom. The U.S. Government will first review and evaluate the proposal for adequacy and eligibility to determine the extent to which the following requirements are met:

1. The merit and risk elements of the technical approach and proposed prototype project are feasible, acceptable, clear, and address all areas and objectives of Attachment 0001- SOO.

2. The proposed project schedule is realistic and/or adequate, and meets timelines laid out in Attachment 0001 – SOO.

The Technical Proposal Volume will be evaluated and categorized as follows:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FACTOR ONE: TECHNICAL

Rating Definition

Excellent

An excellent rating will be given if the Offeror demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and the overarching approach has a high probability of achieving all or most of the requirements.

Good

A good rating will be given if the Offeror demonstrates a good understanding of the requirements and the overarching approach has a good probability of achieving all or most of the requirements.

Acceptable

An acceptable rating will be given if the Offeror demonstrates an average understanding of the requirements and the overarching approach has an average probability of achieving all or most of the requirements.

Unacceptable An unacceptable rating will be given if the Offeror demonstrates little or no understanding of the requirements and the overarching approach has a low probability of achieving all or most of the requirements.

3.8.2 Price Proposal Evaluation Basis Rating:

The proposed prices in Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix will be used by the U.S. Government to calculate the TEP for the six month period of performance award. The Offeror shall provide proposed prices IAW section 3.7.3 of this document. The TEP is the sum of the Extended Total CLIN Price, as delineated in Attachment 0002 - Pricing Matrix.

The U.S. Government will evaluate Offers based on CLIN prices proposed for the six month period of performance. All prices will be binding. Price proposals will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but will be evaluated for reasonableness.

The U.S. Government is not under any obligation to correct proposal errors or omissions.

Proposals received with errors or omissions in which the U.S. Government is unable to ascertain the Offeror’s intent without discussions may be removed from further consideration.

SECTION 4 - AWARD

4.1 Award Determination

Following the evaluation of Proposals, the U.S. Government anticipates making award to up to four Proposals (one for each region) received determined to provide the best value in accordance with the evaluation process and criteria, above. The U.S. Government reserves the right to make no awards or to make multiple awards.

Should a Proposal be selected for award, only a signed Agreement from a U.S. Government authorized Agreements Officer constitutes an official award. Any other notification or correspondence is not considered an official award and is not sufficient as authorization to proceed with performance. The U.S. Government is not required to provide a notice or feedback to those Offerors whose proposal submissions are not selected for award.

4.2 Points of Contact

Contracting Officer: Trisha Mariman, trisha.m.mariman.civ@mail.mil Contract Specialist: Ann Bonis, ann.m.bonis.civ@mail.mil Contract Specialist: Mr. Christopher Fields, christopher.m.fields24.civ@mail.mil

SECTION 5- ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 0001 – Statement of Objectives (SOO) Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix Attachment 0003 – Questions and Answers Discussed at Industry Day_Revised mailto:trisha.m.mariman.civ@mail.mil mailto:ann.m.bonis.civ@mail.mil mailto:christopher.m.fields24.civ@mail.mil