ATTACHMENT 1-Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria .docx

ATTACHMENT 1-INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR AND EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP SECTION L: PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INFORMATION Para (b) Submission of Offer. The following amends this paragraph with respect to the information and documents required for submission in response to this Request for Proposal (RFP).

The deadline for questions is on 8 Jul 2025, 2:00 PM, Central Standard Time. All questions must be submitted in writing to Mr. James M. Davis at email james.m.davis1.civ@health.mil and Ms. Cathy Harris at email: cathy.l.harris2.civ@health.mil.

ELECTRONIC OFFER. Offeror shall submit electronic offer in response to this solicitation to Mr. James M. Davis at email james.m.davis1.civ@health.mil and Ms. Cathy Harris at email: cathy.l.harris2.civ@health.mil. By the date and time established in block 8 of the SF 1449 (Central Standard Time).

Note: Only electronic (e-mail) proposals will be accepted. Offers submitted by any other method are unacceptable. Each Part shall be submitted as a separate file, with the file names clearly identifying the part number and contractor’s name. Pricing information shall be included in Part III – Pricing only and shall not be included or summarized in any other volume. The proposal shall not contain any extraneous information such as advertisements or marketing information.

Files larger than 20MB may need to be transmitted in separate emails. All emails, regardless of size, need to be received by the Government server, by the stated submission deadline. The Government will not be responsible for any failure of transmission or receipt of the proposal, or any failure of the Offeror to verify receipt of the emailed proposal. All proposals submitted after the deadline will be considered untimely and ineligible for award.

(1) Proposal Content Requirements: Offeror shall submit proposal as follows:

The proposal shall be clear, concise and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiation of the validity of stated claims. Responses to this Request for Proposal (RFP) shall strictly adhere to the requirements set forth in the solicitation. Therefore, the initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms for technical capability and price.

The proposal shall be prepared in Four (4) separate parts as follows:

· Part I – Administrative

· Part II – Technical Capability (Statement of Work/Technical Approach)

· Part III –Past Performance

· Part IV Price

PART I: ADMINISTRATIVE.

1. A summary or title page identifying the Offeror, the full address, phone, Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and/or DUNS number, CAGE code, point(s) of contact (POC(s)) of the Offeror, and the solicitation number. Offeror shall include a statement that the Offeror agrees to hold the offered prices firm for 90 calendar days after the proposal closing date.

2. Representations and Certifications. Offeror shall be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) website at SAM.gov with the appropriate NAICS Code and shall not have any Active Exclusions listed within SAM. If the Offeror is currently registered in SAM with completed representations and certifications, an affirmation on the title page (or separate page) that these representations and certificates are current, complete, and accurate as of the date proposals are due shall suffice.

PART II: Technical Capability

(a) The Technical Capability Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for an effective evaluation that substantiates the validity of stated claims. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are important. Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical Capability defined in the RFP Section M, Proposal Evaluation Information. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements; instead, provide a convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the stated objective. Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will comply with the SOW (Attachment 3), statements paraphrasing the SOW 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” 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, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

Offerors are advised that the Technical Approach in the ultimately awarded Task Order document may reflect any capabilities proposed by the Offeror.

(b) The Technical Capability Volume shall be prepared and submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format and the evaluation criteria for award set forth in Section M of this RFP. The section shall be prepared in an orderly format and provide the methodology, and the work required for each task with sufficient detail to enable the Government to make a thorough evaluation of the contractor’s technical competence and ability to execute the proposed tasks to meet the objectives specified in the SOW.

PART III PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance shall include the following:

PAST PERFORMANCE:

The Offeror shall submit with its proposal evidence of recent and relevant past performance under which YOUR company (the Offeror) provided the same or similar services with similar magnitude and scope in the public and/or private sector as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation. Performance must have been by the Offeror (not by a subsidiary or sister company) either as the prime contractor or subcontractor. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining recency and relevancy, see the Evaluation Criteria for Factor 2 – Past Performance in the Addendum to 52.212-2.

• Offerors shall complete and provide the Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheet (Attachment 4) on a minimum of three (3) task orders or stand-alone contracts/purchase orders and a maximum of three (3) the Offeror will complete or has completed within the past three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation that the Offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating YOUR company’s (the Offeror’s) ability to perform the proposed effort. Offerors shall utilize the attachment provided and ensure all information is complete and accurate.

• If the Task Order or Contract being submitted is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), only after issuance of a delivery/task order does performance occur. The Contract Number, Total Contract Dollar Value, Period of Performance, Type and Complexity of Services provided submitted shall be for the Task/Delivery Order the Offeror has performed under this ordering type contractual vehicle. Not the ordering vehicle itself or a combination of orders under the vehicle.

• Past Performance must be with the Department of Defense (DoD), other US Government departments or agencies, state and local governments and/or commercial/private sector clients. If the Offeror performed as a subcontractor on the referenced project, the PPI shall explain what percentage and type of work that was performed by the Offeror as subcontractor.

The Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance submittals and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contract Past Performance Assessment System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources and/or non-Government sources, such as any commercial business or customers referenced by the Offeror in any of the past performance information disclosed.

• Offerors shall submit with its proposal consent letters executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information.

PART IV: PRICE.

The Offeror shall submit proposed pricing for all contract line-item numbers identified in the solicitation on the Excel spreadsheet provided as Attachment 2. The Pricing Worksheet shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format with all formulas intact.

All information relating to the proposed price must be included in electronic format. Electronic files/versions should not be read only or password protected. All Excel formulas, lookup tables, and links should be intact, and no links should exist to files not included with the submission. Excel workbooks shall not contain hidden spreadsheets. PDF or flat files will not be considered adequate. Failure to comply with these formatting requirements may result in rejection of your proposal.

Offerors shall ensure the formulas and totals accurately reflect the pricing data proposed. Provide total pricing for the base period, as well as a grand total of the entire proposal. Cost and Pricing Data is not required under competitive and commercial acquisitions; however, if only one proposal is received - Other than Certified Cost or Pricing techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) may be used. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.402(a) may be required from the Offeror to support the proposed price.

Note: No more than 2 decimal places are to be used.

(End of Section L)

SECTION M: PROPOSAL EVALUATION INFORMATION

(a) Award will be made Award will be made using the Best-Value Tradeoff, provided the contractor’s proposal conforms to the requirements of the Solicitation ; its price is determined to be fair and reasonable by the Contracting Officer; and the Contracting Officer determines the offeror is responsible. The following factors will be used to evaluate the offer:

Factor 1 – Technical Capability (Technical Approach)

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor-3 Price

1. Technical Capability: (Technical Approach)

The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The Contractor will be evaluated on its ability to: 1) Demonstrate a clear understanding of the work to be performed; 2) Meet the Government’s objective; 3) Perform the tasks and deliverables of the SOW within the period of performance.

The following adjectival ratings will be used in evaluating the offeror’s Technical Capability:

Acceptable – An Acceptable rating will be assessed on any offeror whose proposal clearly meets each aspect of the SOW and other requirements listed in the solicitation.

Unacceptable – An Unacceptable rating will be assessed on any offeror that presents a proposal that demonstrates:

a. Failure to meet each aspect of the SOW and other requirements of the solicitation.

b. Failure to provide sufficient detail for the Government to determine whether its offer meets the SOW and the requirements of the solicitation.

2. Past Performance

Evaluation Process

This factor is assessed with an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) rating (Table 2) which is based on an integrated assessment of the Offerors recent, relevant and quality past performance (PPI Sheets, PPQs and information obtained from other sources available to the Government).

The resulting Performance Confidence Assessment rating is determined at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent, relevant and quality past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

NOTE: Past performance reference projects performed by a proposed teaming partner or a proposed subcontractor will only be considered if: (1) the Offeror submits at least one recent and relevant past performance project that the Offeror has performed, as a prime; (2) the teaming partner or subcontractor is identified as a teaming partner or subcontractor in the administrative volume of the proposal, and (3) the role and percentage of work proposed to be performed by the teaming partner or subcontractor on the proposed requirement is detailed in the proposal. Items (2) and (3) shall be identified in the administrative volume.

For Offerors who relied on a subcontractor/teaming partner’s past performance information, the Government will ensure those Offerors meet the subcontractor/teaming partner requirements outlined in the solicitation. The Government will follow 13 CFR 125.8(e) when evaluating any Joint Venture’s submittal under this factor. Consideration will be given to work done individually for each partner as well as work done as the Joint Venture (as applicable).

Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information contained in the Offeror’s submittals will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past three (3) years from the closing date of this Solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Ratings: An assessment of the recent past performance information will be made to determine its relevancy. This information will be evaluated to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires.

Table 1 Relevancy Rating

Performance Quality Assessment After the determination of recency and relevancy, the Government will assess the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the Performance Confidence Assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Confidence Ratings: The Government will use the following definitions/ratings in Table 3 when making an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA).

Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessment

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Methods

3. Price:

a. The Government will evaluate using various cost analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price IAW FAR 15.404-1(c) including, but not limited to, verification of cost data or pricing data and evaluation of cost elements, evaluating the effect of the offeror’s current practices on future costs, comparison of costs proposed by the offeror for individual cost elements, verification that the offeror's cost submissions are in accordance with the contract cost principles and procedures in part 31 and, when applicable, the requirements and procedures in 48 CFR chapter 99, Cost Accounting Standards, review to determine whether any cost data or pricing data, necessary to make the offeror’s proposal suitable for negotiation, have not been either submitted or identified in writing by the offeror. If there are such data, the contracting officer shall attempt to obtain and use them in the negotiations or make satisfactory allowance for the incomplete data. The offerors pricing must be considered fair and reasonable in order to be considered for contract award.

(End Section M)