PrePropoal_Conference_Medical_Laboratory_Services_032818.pdf

Pre-Proposal Conference Medical Laboratory Testing Services Human Immunodeficiency Virus(es)

W81K04-18-R-0004

3 May 2018

Presented By:

Kathleen Henderson, Contacting Officer and Yvonne Camarce, Contract Specialist

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 2 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 2 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Agenda – 3 May 2018

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

7:30 – 8:00 am Registration

8:00 – 8:15 am Introduction/Administrative Announcements

8:15 – 9:15 am MEDCOM

9:15 – 9:30 am Break

9:30 – 10:30 am Solicitation Terms and Conditions/CLINs

10:30 – 10:45 am Break

10:45 - 12:00 pm Solicitation Discussion (FAR Provision Addendum 52.212-1 & 52.212-2)

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 3 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 3 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• Clarifications and Questions related to the RFP

– Must be submitted in writing

• To be Posted on FedBizOpps after Conference:

– Briefing Slides and Attendees List

– Official responses to clarifications and questions

• Company and authors’ names excluded

• Unauthorized Activities

– Sidebars with Government Personnel

– Photos of Government Facilities

– Use of Recording Devices

• Visitor’s badge must be worn in full view

Administrative Announcements

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 4 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 4 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Introduction of Government Team

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• Procuring and Administrative

– Contracting Officer – Ms. Kathleen Henderson

– Contract Specialist – Ms. Yvonne Camarce

– Admin Contracting Officer – Mr. Mike Hunter

– Admin Contract Specialist – Mr. Albert Solis

• Technical Representative

– Contracting Officer Representative – LTC Robert Nace

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 5 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 5 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• FAR 12 Commercial Terms and Standards

• Contract Type

• Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), Single Award Task

Order Contract (SATOC) issuing Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) Task Orders

• Competitive, Trade-Off Source Selection Procedures

• Instructions to Offerors (FAR 52.212-1)

• Evaluation of Offers (FAR 52.212-2)

• Proposal Due Date: 21 May 2018

Solicitation Terms and Conditions

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 6 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 6 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• Basis of Award. The Government will award to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Government, taking into consideration price and other criteria set forth in this document and based upon the specified evaluation criteria. It may be in the Government’s best interest to consider award to other than lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. This may result in award being made to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror, where the Government determines the benefits (Technical Approach, Past and/or Current Performance, Small Business Participation Plan) outweigh the cost difference. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factor 1 - Technical Approach, a rating of no less than “Satisfactory Confidence” or “Neutral Confidence” must be achieved for Factor 2- Past and/or Current Performance, and a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factor 3 - Small Business Participation Plan. Factor 4 - Price will not receive an evaluation rating but will be evaluated to establish reasonableness of the otherwise successful offeror’s price.

• The following evaluation factors are set forth in the solicitation:

– Factor 1: Technical Approach

– Factor 2: Past and/or Current Performance

– Factor 3: Small Business Participation Plan

– Factor 4: Price

Basis of Award

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 7 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 7 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Tradeoff Process, FAR 15.101-1

• A tradeoff source selection approach

• The relative importance of price may vary in relation to other non-price evaluation factors as communicated by the Government to potential offerors in the solicitation per FAR Subpart 15.304(d) and (e).

• For this solicitation, Factor 1 – Technical Approach is significantly more important than Factor 2 – Past and/or Current Performance. Factor 2 - Past and/or Current Performance is significantly more important than Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Plan. Factor 3 - Small Business Participation Plan is significantly more important than Factor 4 - Price. Factors 1, 2, and 3 when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4. Offerors are cautioned that the awards may not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced offers.

Best Value FAR 15.101

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 8 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 8 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

FAR Provision 52.212-1

Volume ITO Paragraph Number Volume Title Copies Page Limit

I 2.a. Administrative 1 Un-sanitized CD-R 10*

Section A 2.a.(1) Completed/signed SF1449 Section B 2.a.(2) Acknowledged/signed amendments **See Below Section C 2.a.(3) Completed Provisions **See Below Section D 2.a.(4) Statement of Offerors Section E 2.a.(5) Contractor Team Arrangement (if applicable) Section F 2.a.(6) Contractor Information Sheet (Attachment 2)

II 2.b. Factor 1 – Technical Approach 1 Un-sanitized CD-R 1 Sanitized CD-R

85***

Section A 2.b.(6)(a) General Requirements, PWS Section 1 25

Supplement A-1 2.b.(6)(a) Sample Quality Control Plan **See Below

Section B 2.b.(6)(b) Contractor-Furnished Items and Responsibilities, PWS Section

Section C 2.b.(6)(c) Specific Task Requirements, PWS Section 5 30

Supplement C-1 Current CLIA Certificate 1

Supplement C-2 CAP Laboratory Data (Attachment 6) No Limit

Supplement C-3 CAP Analyte Scorecard (Attachment 7) No Limit

Supplement C-4 Sample Testing Diagram and Layout No Limit

Supplement C-5 HIV Testing Statistics No Limit

III 2.c. Factor 2 – Past and/or Current Performance 1 Un-sanitized CD-R No Limit

IV 2.d. Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Plan (Attachment 4) 1 Un-sanitized CD-R No Limit

V 2.e. Factor 4 – Price (Attachment 3) 1 Un-sanitized CD-R No Limit

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 9 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 9 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Factor 4 Price

• Offerors are to complete the Pricing Spreadsheet (Attachment 3).

Instructions are listed on the “Instruction” tab. Offerors are to enter pricing in the green areas only. Do NOT change the formulas or any other numbers. The determination of total evaluated price will be established by totaling the offeror’s proposed prices for CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0005 for the one 5-year ordering period.

• An offeror’s Total Evaluated Price includes the sum of all prices for all CLINs for the one five-year ordering period with the exception of:

• Contractor Manpower Reporting (CMR), CLIN 0003. Offerors shall not provide separate pricing for annual CMR requirements. CMR appears as Not Separately Priced “NSP” CLIN.

• Post-Award Conference (Minimum Guarantee), CLIN 0004. Offerors shall not provide separate pricing for post-award conference (minimum guaranteed amount) as it is priced by the Government ($1,500).

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 10 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 10 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• Tradeoff Source Selection. A tradeoff source selection approach will be used pursuant to FAR Subpart 15.101-1. In a tradeoff source selection, the relative importance of price may vary in relation to other non-price evaluation factors as communicated by the Government to potential offerors in the solicitation per FAR Subpart 15.304(d) and (e). For this solicitation, Factor 1 – Technical Approach is significantly more important than Factor 2 – Past and/or Current Performance. Factor 2 - Past and/or Current Performance is significantly more important than Factor 3 – Small Business Participation Plan. Factor 3 - Small Business Participation Plan is significantly more important than Factor 4 - Price. Factors 1, 2, and 3 when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4. Offerors are cautioned that the awards may not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced offers.

• Evaluation Approach. Each proposal received will be evaluated with the criteria outlined in the solicitation for the purpose of assessing the proposal and the offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully.

– The Technical Approach (Factor 1) will be assigned an adjectival rating using Table 1 - Combined Technical/Risk Evaluation Ratings and Table 2 – Risk Descriptions. The Past and/or Current Performance (Factor 2) will be assigned a performance confidence assessment rating using Table 5

– Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings. The Small Business Participation Plan factor will be assigned an adjectival rating using Table 6 - Small Business Participation Plan Ratings. Lastly, the Price factor will be evaluated to establish reasonableness of the otherwise successful offeror’s price and will not receive an evaluation rating.

– All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is adequacy of response and feasibility of approach.

FAR Provision 52.212-2

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 11 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 11 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Table 1. Combined Technical Risk/Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Combined Technical Risk

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 12 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 12 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

Technical Risk Description

Table 2. Technical Risk Descriptions

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure of a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 13 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 13 of 20

UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO

• Given that FAR Clause 52.217-8 provides the Government may exercise the option to extend services at the rates specified in the contract (i.e., the rates in effect when the Extension of Services option is exercised), for purposes of evaluating the option to extend services, the KO will consider the prices submitted for the one 5-year ordering period as binding should the option to extend services be exercised.

• In accordance with DFARS Clause 252.216-7006 Ordering (May 2011) - Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the contract schedule. Such orders may be issued from 24 August 2018 through 23 August 2023 (23 February 2024 if FAR 52.217-8 is exercised).

FAR Clause 52.217-8

Rank Action Officer / e-mail / phone number 08 January 2016Slide 14 of x 3 May 2018Kathleen Henderson/kathleen.d.henderson2.civ@mail.mil Slide 14 of 20

Guidance